Haryana

Panchkula

CC/53/2017

AMAN SINGLA - Complainant(s)

Versus

LENOVO INDIA PVT LTD - Opp.Party(s)

D.K SINGHAL

13 Oct 2017

ORDER

Before the District Consumer, Dispute Redressall, Forum, Panchkula.

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	53 of 2017
Date of Institution;	:	08.03.2017
Date of Decision	:	13.10.2017

 

Aman Singla S/o Late sh. B.D. Singla, R/o House No.2, Sector18, Panchkula.

…….Complainant

Versus

1.       Lenovo India Pvt. Ltd. Through its Managing Director, having its Regd. Office at Ferns Icon, Level-2, Doddenakund Village, Marathhalli Outer Ring Road, Marathhalli Post, Kr. Puan Hobli, Bangalore-560037

2.       W S Retail Services Pvt. Ltd., through its Managing Director, Ozone Manay Tech Park, No.56/18, B Block, 9^th Floor, Garvebhavipalya Hosur Road, Banglore, Karnataka-560068.     

….. Opposite Parties

3.       M/s Sant Rameshwari Enterprises, Customer Care of Lenovo India Pvt. Ltd, through its Proprietor/Partner/Authorized Signatory having its office at SCO No.26, 1^st Floor, Sector 20-D, Chandigarh-160020.

Performa Opposite Party

Complaint under Sec.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Before :                                                Mr. Dharam Pal, President.

                                                Mrs. Anita Kapoor, Member.

                                                Mr. Jagmohan Singh, Member

 

For the Parties:                 Mr. Amit Singla, Advocate for the complainant

Defence of Ops No.1 and 3 already struck off.

Mr. Advocate for the OP No.2.

Order

(Anita Kapoor, Member)

1.       On being allured by the advertisement given by OP No.1 on the electronic media, the complainant herein made an on-line purchase of “Lenovo P1m (Mini)”, a “Future Ready Phone”. In the course of the advertisement, OP No.1 had held out an assurance that “the mobile phone in question supporting the function of 4G network which includes the VoLTE (Voice over LTE) function as well and all the LTE bandwidth had already been installed in the mobile phone which support complete 4G network in future also”. The payment of the total purchase amount of Rs.7999/- was made by online payment. On the order being placed, OP No.1 informed that the mobile will be delivered to him within a short period. Annexure C-1 is the Invoice dated 05.03.2016. The mobile phone was delivered to the complainant by OP No.2, a dealer in the product aforementioned, in the month of March, 2016.

2.       The complainant, a law graduate working as Area Manager (Legal) in India Bulls Housing Finance Limited, has to make frequent use of the net in connection with this professional functioning. He purchased a SIM of Reliance JIO of a new network JIO Services, introduced by Reliance JIO-Infocomm Ltd. in the meantime. However, the complainant found that the JIO SIM did not work in the Lenovo Mobile. Frequent approach made by the complainant with OP No.3 (customer care of OP No.1), too, did not yield any fruitful result and OP No.3 conceded that “the mobile phone in question does not support VoLTE feature”. Annexures C-2 to C-4, dated 27.09.2016, 02.10.2016 and 04.10.2016 respectively, are the copies of e-mails evidencing the interaction between by the complainant with OP No.3. Even after the installation of JIO application in the phone for functioning of 4G by the customer care of Reliance JIO – Infocomm Ltd., which the complainant approached on the plea of OP No.3, the Lenovo phone did not become functional for the purpose aforementioned. The customer care of Reliance JIO Infocomm Ltd. informed the complainant that “the said phone had not been containing the LTE Bandwidth of Reliance JIO Infocomm Network”. The customer care aforementioned advised the complainant to approach the manufacturer for redressal of the grievance.” It was then that the complainant wrote an e-mail to the customer care of OP No.1 on 12.10.2016 informing the latter that “the mobile phone had been showing the feature of VoLTE whereas, the said feature is not working in the said phone”. The complainant was informed through e-mail dated 14.10.2016 that “Lenovo P1m (Mini) does not support VoLTE feature”. Annexures C-5 and C-6 are copies of e-mails dated 12.10.2016 and 14.10.2016 respectively.  

3.       The complainant had taken out the literature from the internet wherein it had been clearly mentioned that Lenovo P1m (Mini) supports 4G VoLTE.

4.       The pure and simple grievance of the complainant is that the presentation made by OP No.1 is contrary to the advertisement on the electronic media (and the literature available on net) that the Lenovo Mobile supports 4G functioning and it also supports the 4G VoLTE feature. Annexure C-7 is a copy of the literature downloaded from the internet. 

5.       The complainant filed this complaint with a view to apply for the grant of a direction to OP No.1 to refund the purchase amount of Rs.7999/-, with the interest @ 18% and also to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- for mental agony and harassment caused to him. The complainant also applied for the award of Rs.10,000/- on account of the punitive damages and litigation expenditure quantified at Rs.11,000/-.

6.       The maintainability of the complaint was contested by OP No.2 herein on a preliminary objection that it being a dealer of the product purchased by the complainant, no liability can be fastened upon it.

                   OPs No.1 and 3 entered appearance, through an authorized representative, and obtained a number of adjournments for filing of written statement but none came to be filed. For example, 11.05.2017 was the first date when the complaint was fixed for filing of written statement but none came to be filed. It was not filed on 12.06.2017 and 11.06.2017 either. It was on 21.06.2017 that the defence of OPs No.1 and 3 was order to be struck off. None appeared on their behalf thereafter till date.  

7.       Affidavit Annexure C-A, alongwith documentation Annexure C-1 to C-7, was tendered into evidence on behalf of the complainant; while affidavit Annexure R2/A, alongwith documentation Annexure R2/1 was tendered into evidence on behalf of OP No.2.

8.       We have heard the Learned Counsel for the complainant and OP No.2 and have been through the record.

9.       Insofaras OPs No.2 and 3 are concerned, no relief has been claimed by the complainant against them. In fact, OP No.3 has been recorded in the title of the complaint as the Performa OP. Even otherwise, the law laid down by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission held in Revision Petition No.1071 of 2016 (Manager Jaika Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. vs. Leela Sahu and another) is that a dealer is not liable for a manufacturing defect in a product. In the course thereof, reliance was placed upon a judicial pronouncement recorded by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Hindustan Motors Ltd. and Anr. Vs. N. Siva Kumar and Anr. (2000) 10 SCC 654.     

10.     Insofaras OP No.1 is concerned, the averments made by the complainant are supported by not only an affidavit filed by the complainant himself but also by the literature available on the net about the product. The correspondence exchanged between the complainant and OP No.1 clearly indicates that OP No.1 has not been able to sell a product, as advertised on the electronic media and the net. By the very nature of things, a manufacturer who allures the customer population with a presentation is duty bound to provide those very features in the product which have been used in the advertisement. If the product offered (and purchased by a customer) does not provide the features advertised by the manufacturer, the latter is clearly accountable for the deficiency which is found in the product in the course of functioning.

11.     It, too, cannot be lost sight of that the affidavit/documentation/laced evidence adduced by the complainant is not rebutted by any evidence whatsoever on behalf of OP No.1/manufacturer. The present is also not a case wherein personal service is not proved to have been effected upon OP No.1. In fact, as already recorded, OP No.1 (and OP No.3) did enter appearance through a Counsel and obtained a number of adjournments for filing of written statement which never ever came to be filed. The defence of OP No.1 was, accordingly, struck off and that order is not even indicated by the record to have been challenged till date. That order having been allowed to attain finality, the only inferences is that OP No.1 did not want to contest the complaint.

12.     We would, accordingly, allow the complaint and order that: -

a)       OP No.1 shall pay an amount of Rs.7999/-, with interest @ 6% from the date of purchase till the total payment thereof comes about;

b)       OP No.1 shall pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as compensation for the deficiency in service and also mental harassment and agony caused to him;

c)       OP No.1 shall pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant as the cost of litigation.

13.     The Ops shall comply with this order within a period of one month from the date its communication to them comes about.

14.     A copy of this order shall be forwarded, free of cost, to the parties to the complaint and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

Announced

13.10.2017             JAGMOHAN SINGH   ANITA KAPOOR         DHARAM PAL

                          MEMBER                    MEMBER               PRESIDENT

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.        

                                                ANITA KAPOOR      

                                                     MEMBER