Haryana

Jind

CC/15/30

Subhash - Complainant(s)

Versus

Lenovo India Pvt Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Gita Ram Parmar Jind

15 Jun 2016

ORDER

BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JIND. 
                                           Complaint No. 22 of 2015
   Date of Institution: 18.2.2015
   Date of final order: 15.6.2016 

Subhash s/o Sh. Gaya Parshad r/o Loco Clony, Jind, Tehsil and District Jind.
                                                             ….Complainant.
                                       Versus
Lenovo India Pvt. Ltd. Fems Icon Level-2 Dodda Nekkhundi Bangalur Marthahiall outer ring road, K.R. Puram Hall Bangalore (Karnatka)-560037 through its authorized person/Director.
Lenovo Mobile phone service centre shop No.189 HUDA Complex, near Z Computer, Rohtak through its Proprietor.
Delhi Mobile shop, opp. Bus stand, Gohana road, Jind through its authorized centre.
                                                          …..Opposite parties.
                          Complaint under section 12 of
              Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Before: Sh. Dina Nath Arora, President.
    Smt. Bimla Sheokand, Member.
            Sh. Mahinder Kumar Khurana, Member.    

Present:  Sh. Gita Ram Adv. for complainant.
              Sh. Deepak Sharma Adv. for opposite party No.1. 
          Opposite parties No.2 &3 already ex-parte. 
ORDER:

             The brief facts in the complaint are that complainant  had purchased  a Lenovo A-850 mobile set for a sum of Rs.13,250/- vide receipt No.6548 dated 2.6.2014 from opposite party No.3, which is manufactured by opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.2 is service centre of opposite party No.1. The opposite party No.3 had given one year warranty of the above said mobile set in question. 
            Subhash Vs. Lenovo India Pvt. Ltd. etc.
                    …2…
After using some time, the above said mobile had started giving trouble  due to not proper working of software, hardware, battery, charger and other problems and it got defected. The complainant approached the opposite party No.3 regarding the defects of mobile set, thereafter, the opposite party no.3 told the complainant  to approach the opposite party No.2 to remove the defects of  set who is authorized service centre. The complainant approached the opposite party No.2 for removing the defects, the opposite party No.2 checked the mobile and thereby issued a job sheet by stating that the mobile was in use since 22.1.2014 but the complainant had shown him the bill who purchased the mobile on 2.6.2014 from opposite party No.3. The opposite party No.2 stated that the mobile was in use prior to date of purchase and returned the mobile to the complainant without its repair. Thereafter, the complainant approached with the manufacturing company but all efforts prove futile. The complainant served a legal notice dated 21.1.2014 through his counsel Sh. Gita Ram Parmar Adv. upon the opposite parties but all in vain. Deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties is alleged. It is prayed that the complaint be accepted and opposite parties be directed to replace the mobile set with new one or to pay the cost of mobile i.e. Rs.13,250/-/- as  well as to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- as compensation on account of mental pain and agony  to the complainant. 
2.   Upon notice, the opposite party No.1 has appeared and filed the written statement stating in the preliminary objections i.e. the complainant has no cause of action  to file the present complaint and 
            Subhash Vs. Lenovo India Pvt. Ltd. etc.
                    …3…
the complaint is false and frivolous. On merits, it is contended that   the opposite party No.2 i.e. service centre had successfully rectified the problems by changing the necessary parts as and when the same were brought to the service centre and as such a new mobile cannot be given since there is no manufacturing defect in the mobile of the complainant. As per the records of the answering opposite party, the first complaint was lodged for the smart phone in question of the complainant was on 9.1.2015 i.e. 7 months after the date of purchase i.e. 2.6.2014 for the issue of touch and the complaint call was duly attended by the authorized service Engineer of the answering opposite party and have replaced the part touch panel on 13.1.2015 to make good the smart phone working. The second and final call was lodged on 17.1.2015 where in the Printed Circuit Board (PCB) was replaced on 11.2.2015. There was no manufacturing defect in the mobile and complainant is not entitled for any compensation. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering opposite party. Dismissal of complaint with costs is prayed for. 
3.    Opposite parties No.2 &3 were proceeded against ex-parte vide order of this Forum dated 7.10.2015 and 30.3.2015 respectively. 
4.    In  evidence, the complainant has produced his own affidavit Ex. C-1,  copy of cash memo Ex. C-2, copy of update warranty Ex. C-3, copy of legal notice Ex. C-4 and postal receipt Ex. C-5 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, the opposite party No.1 has  produced   the affidavit of Sh. Alex Chandy, Deputy G.M. of Company Ex. OP-1 and closed the evidence.
            Subhash Vs. Lenovo India Pvt. Ltd. etc.
                    …4…
5.    We have heard the arguments of Ld. counsels of both the parties and perused the record placed on file. The Ld. counsel of complainant argued that the mobile phone purchased by the complainant started giving trouble from the very beginning. The mobile set was sent to authorized service centre of the Company for repair. As per Ex. C-3 i.e. job sheet, it is clearly mentioned that there was problem in hardware of the mobile set. The Ld. counsel of complainant also argued that the mobile set in question was already used and old which has been confirmed by the opposite party No.2 which is authorized service centre of the manufacturing company. It means the dealer of company has sold the mobile old and used which tents amount unfair means of trade practice on the part of opposite party No.3. Thereby there is manufacturing defect in the mobile set. The Ld. counsel of opposite party No.1 argued that the mobile in question was repaired and touch panel was replaced on 13.1.2016 and Printed Circuit Board was also replaced on 11.2.2015 and hence claimed that there is no manufacturing defect. Opposite parties No.2 and 3 already ex-parte. 
6.    After hearing the arguments and perusing the record placed on file, we are of the considered view that as mobile has been repaired a number of times and hardware is having problem, meaning thereby the mobile set is having manufacturing  defects. So the deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties No.1 and 3 is established. The opposite party No.2 is authorized service centre and has clearly disclosed the facts regarding the mobile is old and used. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.2. This 
            Subhash Vs. Lenovo India Pvt. Ltd. etc.
                    …5…
Forum has no hesitation to allow the complaint and hence the complaint is allowed. The opposite parties No.1 and 3 are directed to pay the cost of the mobile phone amounting to Rs.13,250/- to the complainant. The order be complianced within one month from the date of order. In case of failure, the opposite parties No.1 and 3 will pay a simple interest @ 9% p.a.  to the complainant from the date of filing of complaint i.e. 18.2.2015 till its realization.  Copies of order be supplied to the parties under the rule. File be consigned to the record-room after due compliance.
Announced on: 15.6.2016

                                President,
 Member                 Member               District Consumer Disputes                                     Redressal Forum, Jind

 

 

 

 

 

 

         Subhash Vs. Lenovo India Pvt. Ltd. etc.
                    
                    
Present:  Sh. Gita Ram Adv. for complainant.
              Sh. Deepak Sharma Adv. for opposite party No.1. 
          Opposite parties No.2 &3 already ex-parte. 

              Arguments heard. To come up on 15.6.2016 for orders. 
                                    President,
        Member         Member              DCDRF, Jind
                                  14.6.2016

Present:  Sh. Gita Ram Adv. for complainant.
              Sh. Deepak Sharma Adv. for opposite party No.1. 
          Opposite parties No.2 &3 already ex-parte. 

         Order announced. Vide our separate order of even date, the complaint is allowed. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.  
                                          President,
        Member         Member              DCDRF, Jind
                                  15.6.2016