| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA CC.No.312 of 06-05-2016 Decided on 12-05-2017 Manik Nagpal aged about 30 years S/o Satish Nagpal R/o St.No.1, 2nd Crossing, New Suraj Nagri, Abohar-152116, Tehsil Abohar, District Fazilka. ........Complainant Versus 1.Lenovo (India) Private Limited, Ferns Icon, Level 2, Doddenakundi Village, Marathahalli Outer Ring Road, K.R Puram Hobli, Bangalore-560037, Karnataka, India, through its M.D/Director/G.M. 2.W.S Retail Services Pvt. Ltd, 512-514, PCF Godowns Opposite Jail Road, Dasna, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pardesh, India-201010, through its M.D/Director/G.M. 3.Unitech Computerized Mobile Service Centre, Gali Bangi House Near Teacher's Home, Bathinda, through its Proprietor/Onwer/Partner. .......Opposite parties Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 QUORUM Sh.M.P Singh Pahwa, President. Sh.Jarnail Singh, Member. Present:- For the complainant: Sh.B.L Sachdeva, Advocate. For opposite party No.1: Sh.Varun Gupta, Advocate. For opposite party No.2: Sh.Vikas Kumar, Advocate. Opposite party No.3: Ex-parte. ORDER M.P Singh Pahwa, President The complainant Manik Nagpal (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against opposite parties Lenovo (India) Private Limited and Others (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties). Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that opposite party No.1 is engaged in the business of importing the mobile handsets of Lenovo company from other countries and selling the same on large scale in India. Opposite party No.2 is dealer/seller of the company and opposite party No.3 is working as service centre of Lenovo mobile handset at Bathinda. The complainant purchased one online Lenovo A6000 mobile handset for Rs.6999/- in cash from opposite party No.2 on 19.3.2015 vide invoice. At the time of purchase, it was represented to the complainant that the mobile handset is imported by renowned company (opposite party No.1). Opposite party No.1 provided one year guarantee/warranty. It is alleged that after few months, the mobile handset started giving the problems relating to sound, audio and it started heating while using. The matter was immediately reported to opposite party No.1 and 2. On their advice, the complainant approached opposite party No.3 for necessary rectification/repair/replacement of the mobile handset. Opposite party No.3 after checking the mobile handset, issued the receipt dated 6.1.2016 stating that there is problem of PCBA Blast and mobile handset is in non-warranty. The complainant requested opposite parties that the mobile handset is under warranty and there is no fault on his part, but they flatly refused to accept his request. It is further alleged that opposite party No.3 has not repaired/rectified the defect in the mobile handset till date. it amounts to unfair trade practice and deficient in service on the part of opposite parties. The problem occurred in the mobile handset within short period of its purchase, shows that it was not as per the specifications. All opposite parties are guilty of deficient in service and unfair trade practice. On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has prayed for directions to opposite parties to refund the price of the mobile handset alongwith interest @ 18% per annum and to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.20,000/- on account of harassment, mental agony etc. and litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.5500/-. Hence, this complaint. Upon notice, none appeared on behalf of opposite party No.3. As such, ex-parte proceedings were taken against it. Opposite party Nos.1 and 2 appeared through their respective counsel and contested the complaint by filing the separate written version. In the written version, opposite party No.1 has raised the legal objections that the complaint is not maintainable. The complainant has attempted to misguide and mislead this Forum. He has violated the terms and conditions of warranty. He has failed to disclose any legal and valid cause-of-action against opposite party No.1 to file this complaint. He has created a false story in his complaint to mislead this Forum by false and frivolous facts and circumstances. He is estopped from filing this complaint by his own acts, conduct, omissions and acquiescence. The complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious in nature and it has been filed in order to cause undue harassment to opposite party No.1. It does not qualify the ingredients of a valid complaint as envisaged under 'Act'. There is not a single allegation, which leads opposite party No.1 either to deficiency in service or unfair trade practice. The intricate questions of law and facts are involved in this case. The parties have to lead their evidence by examining the witnesses. They are to be cross-examined by the other party. The procedure under 'Act' is summary in nature and complainant, if so advised, may file the civil suit. Opposite party No.1 has already provided service to the complainant. There is neither any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.1 nor it has indulged in unfair trade practice. On merits, it is admitted that opposite party No.1 sells its product as per the specifications and it is manufacturing world class product. It is also admitted that opposite party No.2 is dealer and opposite party No.3 is service centre of opposite party No.1. It is further admitted that the complainant purchased the mobile handset of the company and opposite party No.1 provided the warranty as per the terms and conditions. It is further mentioned that the complainant has no right to get the warranty beyond the terms and conditions. It is also admitted that opposite party No.3 received the mobile handset from the complainant and opposite party No.1 after going through the same, found that it fall within CID (Customer Induced Damage). As such, the complainant himself violated the terms and conditions of warranty and PCBA blast of the mobile handset. It is also pleaded that the proper service has been provided to the complainant by opposite party No.1. There is no deficiency in service. As per opposite party No.1, it issued warranty alongwith some conditions, which are in term of public policy. All other averments of the complainant are also denied. In the end, opposite party No.1 has prayed for dismissal of complaint. In the separate written version, opposite party No.2 has raised the preliminary objections that it is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. It is carrying on the business of sale of goods manufactured by others. It is a registered reseller on the website 'Flipkart.com' and it sells the product of other manufacturers, traders etc. under its respective trade marks through the website. It has acquired good market reputation for its range of products offered and for its exceptional customer support. Further preliminary objections are that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint as the product was received by the complainant at Abohar, District Fazilka and it got problem at Abohar. No cause-of-action arose at Bathinda. The complaint is abuse of process of law. Opposite party No.2 is not engaged in selling of any goods, manufactured and produced on its own. It is engaged in selling of goods, manufactured and produced by others. Opposite party No.1 is the manufacturer/importer of the mobile handset in question. Opposite party No.2 has a separate and distinct identity from the manufacturer of the product i.e. opposite party No.1. There is no relation of principal & agent between opposite party No.2 and opposite party No.1. The entire grievance of the complainant relates to the defects in the product and 'after sale service' issue post the product's satisfactory used by the complainant for nearly about 10 months. He is well aware of the fact that opposite party No.2, being merely a reseller of the product, cannot remove the defect in the product, if any. The complainant never contacted or interacted with opposite party No.2. The averments made in the complaint do not point out any specific grievance against opposite party No.2. The product was sold by opposite party No.2 carrying manufacturer's warranty as provided by the manufacturer. As a goodwill gesture, opposite party No.2 provides 30 days replacement policy to its customers. The complainant used the product in issue for about 10 months and he did not approach opposite party No.2. It leads to irrefutable conclusion that the product was working fine, not only at the time of purchase, but even thereafter till 6.1.2016. There is no dispute contemplated under 'Act'. Opposite party No.2 is not the manufacturer of the product and it has no facility or knowledge/technical, now how to ascertain whether the product is defective or it has manufacturing defect. On merits, opposite party No.2 has reiterated its stand as taken in the preliminary objections and detailed above. In the end, opposite party No.2 has prayed for dismissal of complaint. Parties were asked to produce the evidence. In support of his claim, the complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit dated 17.2.2016, (Ex.C1); photocopy of bill, (Ex.C2); photocopy of writing, (Ex.C3) and submitted written arguments. To rebut the claim of the complainant, opposite party No.1 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Shankara Narayanan Prakash dated 31.1.2017, (Ex.OP1/1); photocopy of authorization, (Ex.OP1/2); photocopy of terms and conditions, (Ex.OP1/3) and closed the evidence. Opposite party No.2 has tendered into evidence photocopy of resolution, (Ex.OP2/1); affidavit of Mrs.Swati Singh dated 19.10.2016, (Ex.OP2/2) and closed the evidence. We have heard learned counsel for parties and gone through the file as well as written arguments submitted by learned counsel for complainant. Learned counsel for parties have reiterated their stand as taken in their respective pleadings and detailed above. We have given careful consideration to these rival submissions. It is not disputed that the complainant has purchased the mobile handset from opposite party No.2, manufactured/imported by opposite party No.1. As per complainant, opposite parties provided warranty for one year. This fact is also not disputed. The complainant has pleaded that the defect occurred in the mobile handset within the warranty period. Writing, (Ex.C3) shows that opposite party No.3 examined the mobile handset and found defect. Although, it is mentioned that PCB blast and it is not under warranty. Opposite party No.1 has placed on record limited warranty document, (Ex.OP1/3). There is nothing to show that the defect was not covered under warranty. Moreover the mobile handset was examined by opposite party No.3, which is authorized service centre of opposite party No.1, but none from the service centre has appeared and no evidence from opposite party No.3 is on file. In these circumstances, the affidavit of Shankara Narayanan Prakash, (Ex.OP1/1), who has never inspected the product in question, will not prove that the defect is not covered under the warranty or that there is such defect, which is beyond the warranty. The mobile handset was within the warranty when the defect was reported. Therefore, opposite party No.1 was bound to provide the service, but no service has been provided. It amounts to deficiency in service. In view of above discussions, opposite party No.1 has not denied from its liability, but as per terms and conditions of warranty. In these circumstances, the complaint is partly accepted with Rs.2000/- as cost and compensation against opposite party No.1 and dismissed qua opposite party Nos.2 and 3. Opposite party No.1 is directed to repair the mobile handset in question as per terms and conditions of the warranty. The compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record. Announced:- 12-05-2017 (M.P Singh Pahwa) President (Jarnail Singh) Member
| |
