Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/28/2018

Aman Singla - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Ammish Goel, Adv.

31 Jul 2018

ORDER

   STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH

 

Appeal No.	28 of 2018
Date of Institution	28.02.2018
Date of Decision	31.07.2018

 

Aman Singla s/o Late Sh.B.D.Singla, R/o H.No.2, Sector 18, Panchkula       

                                                           …..Appellant/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.Puram Hobli, Banglore 560037

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

                                                                                    .... Respondents

3]  M/s Sant Rameshwari Enterprises, Customer Care of Lenovo India Pvt. Ltd., through its Proprietor/partner/authorised signatory having its office at SCO No.26, 1st Floor, Sector 20-D, Chandigarh.

                                                          …..Proforma Respondent

BEFORE:             JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT

                             MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

 

Argued by:

 

Sh. Ammish Goel, Advocate for the appellant.

Sh. Pawandeep Singh, Advocate for respondent No.1.

Sh. Rohit Kumar, Advocate for respondent No.2.

Respondent No.3 exparte vide order dated 09.04.2018.

 

PER PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

              This appeal is directed against the order dated 29.12.2017, rendered by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, UT, Chandigarh (in short ‘the Forum’ only), vide which, it dismissed Consumer Complaint bearing No.305 of 2017.

2.                 Facts of the consumer complaint filed by the appellant/complainant, noted by the Forum, are as under:-

“The facts in issue are that the complainant purchased Lenovo P-70 (Blue) mobile handset from Opposite Party NO.1 through Online purchase for an amount of Rs.13,993/- on 17.8.2016 (Ann.C-1).  It is averred that while promoting the phone, the OP No.1 assured that the said mobile phone supporting the function of 4G Network, which includes the VoLTE (Voice over LTE) function and that all the LTE bandwidth had already been installed in the mobile phone which supports complete 4G network in future also.  Thereafter, the complainant purchased Jio SIM, inserted it in the mobile phone in question, but shocked to see that the said Jio SIM did not start working in his phone as it did not support it.  The complainant brought this matter to the notice of Opposite Party NO.3 i.e. Customer Care of Opposite Party NO.1, who confirmed that the said phone is not supporting the VoLTE feature and due to said reason the 4G Services of Jio cannot be accessed.  It is averred that the complainant sent an email dated 25.9.2016 to Opposite Party NO.1 and in reply to it vide email dated 27.9.2016, the Opposite Party NO.1 stated that the mobile phone in question does not support VoLTE feature, but the complainant can assess the Data Connectivity.  It is averred that since the Jio SIM services are not supporting in the mobile handset in question, so the complainant had to purchase another mobile phone for availing 4G services, which caused extra financial burden on the complainant.  It is also averred that the complainant strongly agitated the matter with Opposite Party NO.1, but they did not pay any heed. It is stated that the very purpose of purchasing the mobile phone of the complainant stood frustrated as the said mobile phone does not support the VoLTE function which is a basic feature of 4G and the future ready mobile phone and that the complainant has been misguided by Opposite Party NO.1 while purchasing the mobile in question. Hence, this complaint has been filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs.”

3.                Reply submitted by respondent No.1/Opposite Party No.1  (Lenovo India Pvt. Ltd.), was noted by the Forum, as under:-

“The Opposite Party NO.1 has filed reply and while admitting the factual matrix of the case, stated that the Smart Phone Model Lenovo P70 purchased by the complainant is 4G LTE enable phone, however, with limited bandwidth and the handset in question does not support VoLTE SIM.  It is submitted that the complainant being a learned person, has bought the Smart Phone in question on his own will and pleasure after verifying the features/configuration/ technical details of the same, which does not have the feature of supporting VoLTE SIM and therefore, the complainant cannot blame that the handset purchased by him is defective or that he could not use the JIO Brand SIM in it as the model purchased by him does not have the feature of supporting VoLTE SIM.  It is also submitted that the complainant cannot blames the OP NO.1 for his own wrongs.  It is further submitted that there is neither any defect in the Smart phone in question nor any shortcoming/deficiency in service on the part of OPs and for any wrongdoings of the complainant, the OPs cannot be blamed.  Pleading no deficiency in service and denying rest of the allegations, the Opposite Party NO.1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.”

4.                Opposite Party No.2 (Shiv Agency) and Opposite Party No.3 (M/s Sant Rameshwari Enterprises) were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 12.07.2017.

5.                The parties led evidence, in support of their case.

6.                After hearing Counsel for the complainant and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the Forum, dismissed the complaint, as stated above. 

7.                Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/Complainant.

8.                Respondent No.3 did not appear, despite service. Hence, it was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 09.04.2018.

9.                We have heard Counsel for the appellant, Counsel for respondent No.1 & Counsel for respondent No.2 and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully. 

10.               Counsel for the appellant/complainant submitted that  at the time of purchase of the mobile handset, it was assured by respondent No.1 that the said mobile would support the function of 4G network, which includes VoLTE (Voice over LTE) function and all the LTE bandwidth had already installed in the mobile phone, which supports complete 4G network in future also. He further submitted that at the time of purchase of mobile, in question, Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd. had not launched their services, which was subsequently launched there on.  He further submitted that when the appellant had purchased a future ready smart phone, meaning thereby, it is crystal clear, that whatever the technology would be launched by any telecom operator in future that would work in the said future ready smart phone. He further submitted that the appellant/complainant being a non technical person, it was very difficult for him to search about the bandwidths, which would work in the phone or not in future, before buying the product. He further submitted that from the very beginning respondent No.1 had misguided the general public, in order to sell their product in arbitrary and illegal manner. He prayed for allowing the appeal and setting aside the impugned order.

10.               Counsel for respondent No.1 and Counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that the Forum has rightly passed the impugned order and prayed for dismissal of the appeal filed by the complainant.

11.               After going through the evidence and record of the case, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded, hereinafter.

12.               The only point for consideration before us is as to whether the Forum has rightly dismissed the complaint. The answer, to this, question is in the affirmative. It is an admitted fact that the appellant/complainant had purchased Lenovo P-70 (Blue) mobile handset from Opposite Party No.1 through online for an amount of Rs.13,993/- on 17.08.2016 vide invoice (Annexure C-1). The appellant/complainant had made a statement that at the time of its purchase, respondent No.1 had assured him that the mobile handset would support the function of 4 G network, which includes VoLTE (Voice over LTE) function and that all the LTE bandwidth had already been installed in the mobile phone, which supports complete 4 G network in future also but he has not produced any document to prove this. The main grouse of the appellant is that jio sim when inserted in the said mobile handset, the said handset did not start working as the said sim was not supported by the phone. The customer care of the respondents confirmed that the said phone is not supporting VoLTE feature and due to the said reason, 4 G services of Jio cannot be accessed. The appellant was able to access the internet data but since the Jio Sim was not compatable with the said phone, he could not have the benefit of VoLTE feature. On going through the documents and the averments, we are of the firm view that the learned Forum had correctly dismissed the complaint for the following reasons.

13.               During the course of arguments, the appellant when asked about the phone specifications, produced on record Lenovo P70 – Full phone specifications from the internet, which is marked as Annexure ‘AX’  and the relevant portion of the said document reads thus :-

NETWORK	Technology	GSM/HSPA/LTE
	2G bands	GSM 850/900/1800/1900 – SIM 1 & SIM 2
	3G bands	HSDPA 900/2100
	4G bands	LTE band 1(2100), 3(1800), 7(2600), 20(800) – Data only, no voice.
	Speed	HSPA 21.1/5.76 Mbps, LTE Cat4 150/50 Mbps
	GPRS	Yes
	EDGE	Yes
LAUNCH	Announced	2015, January
	Status	Available, Released 2015, February.

 

From the above specifications, it is very clear that the said phone allowed LTE band for 4G and is giving access only to data and not to voice. Further, the said phone was launched in January, 2015 when the Jio Sim Volte technology was never released in the market. The said technology was subsequently brought into the market by Reliance. Therefore, the averment made by the appellant that his phone could not support VoLTE of Jio Sim does not deserve any merit and accordingly, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.  

14.               For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands dismissed, with no order as to costs.

15.               Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

16.               The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.    

Pronounced.

July  31^st, 2018.                                                    

[JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)]

[PRESIDENT]

 

 

 (PADMA PANDEY)

        MEMBER

rb