PRESENT

Complainant Absent.

Opponent No. 3 Ex-pare.

Opponent No. 1 o 2 by Adv. Thomas present.

                       ORDER

(Per- Shri. S.D. MADAKE, Hon’ble President )

1. The complainant purchased Lenovo handset for Rs.17,500/- from opponent on 10.05.2014 with one year manufacturers warranty. It is stated that after two months and fifteen days the said handset suddenly stopped a network and there was no signal indication on the handset.

2. The complainant informed to opp.3 which is service centre and it was revealed that PCB was damaged due to internal heating. The said article was given for repair on 28.7.2014 and same was returned on 18.8.2014.

3. The complainant noted that same issue existed on 13.9.2014 and this time complainant requested for replacement, however same was not considered and simply repaired the same and returned on 14.10.2014.

4. According to complainant said device again started showing issues. It started external heating and front camera got damaged. The issue was reported on 27.1.2015 and she claimed replacement at service centre. She insisted for six months warranty, however opp. agreed for three months only.

5. The complainant could not use handset as most of the time the handset was submitted to service. It is alleged that opp. failed to solve the issue and did not reply the notice. She prayed for refund of Rs.17,500/- in addition to compensation of Rs.10,000/- for mental agony and cost of Rs.5000/-.

6. The complainant filed copy of bill, service record , copies of mail and all relevant documents including affidavit of evidence.

7. The opp.no.1 and 2 filed written statement and resisted allegations made in complaint. It is stated that authorized service centre provided proper service by replacing the motherboard of mobile phone and returned to complainant on 12.8.2014.

8. The opp. no. 1 and 2 alleged that, complainant made complaint on 13.9.2014 and accordingly service was provided immediately by replacing the motherboard , however complainant collected same after 18 days after service.

9. The opp. no. 1 and 2 submitted that authorized service centre of opp. has always given services on time but due to complainant’s negligence mobile was lying in service centre for such ling time.

10. The opp. no. 1 and 2 prayed for dismissal of complaint.

11. The forum passed order to proceed ex-parte against opp.no. 3 on 22 March, 2016 as opp. no. 3 failed to appear and file written statement within stipulated time, even after service of notice.

12. We have perused complaint, written version, affidavit of evidence and written argument filed by complainant and opp.no. 1 and 2.

13. Admittedly, the complainant purchased device which is manufactured by opposite party. We have perused Lenova Limited warranty and contents of the warranty.

14. Admittedly, the mobile was damaged within two and half months from date of purchase and same was replaced to the extent of change of motherboard. Admittedly, the mobile was again damaged in sep.2014 and this time again mother board was replaced and mobile was returned on 14.10.2014.

15. Admittedly on 27.1.2015 mobile was having same problem and same was repaired. The opp.no. 1 and 2 stated that authorized centre provided proper service by replacing mother board of mobile.

16. Admittedly the mobile was having defect in the main part i.e. mother board. The same was damaged three times within a short period between May 2014 to Jan 2015. The seller is under an obligation to provide goods which are suitable for the said purpose.

17. Admittedly mobile was lying with service centre during 27.7.2014 to 18.8.2014 and again during 13.9.2014 to 14.10.2014 during warranty period. There is no evidence to show that opponent’s service centre informed in writing that mobile was ready on a particular day stated by opp.no. 1 and 2.

18. The opp.no. 1 and 2 have not adduced evidence to show that, handset was lying with service centre due to negligence of complainant.

19. The complainant has proved that said mobile was having defect and same was not rendering proper service. Hence complainant is entitle to refund of Rs. 17,500/- with reasonable compensation for mental agony Rs.3,000/- and cost of Rs.2,500/-.

20. In the result, we pass the following order.

                                         ORDER

1. The Consumer complaint No.477/2015 is partly allowed.

2. The opposite parties 1 to 3 are jointly and severally are directed to pay Rs.17,500/- (Seventeen thousand five hundred ) to complainant

     with interest @ 9 % p.a. from date of admission of complaint i.e. 30.05.2015.

3. The opp. no. 1 to 3 are further directed to pay Rs.3,000/- (Three thousand ) compensation and Rs.2,500/-(Two thousand five hundred )

     as cost to complainant.

4. The copy of this order be sent to both parties.