DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016
Case No.319/2017
Sh. Sumit Saluja
S/o Sh. Ved Prakash
85, Third Floor, Sant Nagar,
East of Kailash,
New Delhi-110065 ….Complainant
Versus
1. Service and Communication Solution,
A-180, Sukhdev Nagar Market,
Kotla Mubarakpur, Bhishmpitamah Marg,
Near Defence Colony Red Light,
New Delhi-110003
2. Communication Solutions,
F-26/4, G. F. Okhla Phase-2, adjoining Yamaha,
Near Kalkaji DTC Bus Depot, New Delhi-110020
3. Lenovo India Pvt. Ltd.
Ferns Icon, Level-2 Doddenakund Village,
Marathhalli Outer Ring Road,
Marathhalli Post Kr. Puram, Hobli Marathhalli,
Banglore-5630037
And also at:
Lenovo India Pvt. Ltd.
Vatlka Business Park, 1st Floor, Tower-A,
Sohna Road, Sector-49,
Gurgaon-122018 ….Opposite Parties
Date of Institution : 12.09.2017 Date of Order : 05.09.2018
Coram:
Sh. R.S. Bagri, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member
ORDER
Member - Naina Bakshi
Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he has purchased a Lenovo mobile phone, model ZUK ZI IMEI No. 865374020823194 online from Cloudtail India Pvt. Ltd. vide invoice No. KA-BLRG-144105041-13159887 on 26.05.16 for Rs.13498/-. The complainant has stated that all of sudden the mobile phone developed some heating, charging and hanging problems etc., and due to software problem it was showing only Lenovo sign on the display even when it is on. On 26.04.17 the complainant visited the service centre of OP No.2 for repair purpose. The OP No.2 pointed out irrelevant defects in the said mobile phone and stated that the display was to be displaced on cost basis and gave an estimate of Rs.6800/- for replacement of display. The complainant insisted OP No.2 that the display was working but it was having charging, heating and software problems and the phone was under warranty but the OP No.2 was adamant and one of its employee told the complainant that if this mobile is repaired by OP No.2 under warranty then they will not get repair charges and if they repair it out of warranty then they will only get repair as well as commission on the spare parts replaced directly from the customer. The complainant took the mobile phone to other service centre to detect the true defects in the mobile. The OP No1 had given different opinion and stated that due to liquid damage, some IC was not working and display is Okay and given estimate of Rs.2800/-. The complainant insisted the OP No.1 for repair under the warranty as the mobile phone was under the warranty period of one year but OP No.1 was adamant to repair the same on the cost basis. The complainant requested several times to OP No.1 & 3 to return the repaired handset as the same was under warranty but OP No.1 was demanding Rs.8600/- from the complainant. It is clear that both the authorized service centres had given different estimate against the same mobile. It is clear that OPs were violating and exploiting innocent consumers due to their monopoly and unfair trade practice. It is submitted that the complainant sent a legal notice on 10.07.2017 by registered post to the OPs which was duly served on them but till date they had not released the said mobile phone in question to the complainant and same is still lying with OP No.1. Hence, pleading deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs, the complainant has filed the present complaint for the following reliefs:-
- Direct the OPs to repair the mobile phone under the warranty and also restrained them from charging illegal, arbitrary and exorbitant charges.
- Direct the OPs to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant towards punitive compensation for mental agony, inconvenience, hardship and deprivation caused.
- Direct the OPs to pay to the complainant cost of this complaint.
Vide order dated 22.09.17 the complaint was admitted against OP No.1 & 3 only.
The notices were served upon to OP No.1 & 3 but they did not appear to contest the case of the complainant and accordingly they were proceeded exparte on 23.01.18.
The complainant filed exparte evidence as well as written arguments.
We have heard the counsel for the complainant and have also gone through the file very carefully.
OPs have the knowledge about the filing of the complaint but did not choose to contest it.
The complainant has filed a cash memorandum of Rs.13499/- as Annexure-A. Annexure-B was issued by the OP No.1 for Rs.6800/-. The OP No.2 issued an estimate sheet as Annexure-C. The complainant issued a legal notice to the OPs as Annexure-D.
Averments made in the complaint and evidence led by the complainant have remained uncontroverted and unchallenged. Hence, there is no reason to disbelieve the version of the complainant.
It is evident from the record that the complainant had purchased a mobile through online manufactured by OP No.3 and the same is lying with OP No.1. The OPs neither repaired the mobile set nor returned the same to the complainant. Therefore, we hold the OP No.1 & 3 guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. We allow the complaint and direct the OP No.1 & 3 jointly and severally to refund the amount of Rs.13,499/- alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of realization and Rs.5,000/- for harassment and mental agony undergone by the complainant within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which the OP No.1 & 3 jointly and severally shall become liable to pay the said amount of Rs.13,499/- alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of realization.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on 05.09.18
