Punjab

Sangrur

CC/514/2017

Archana Singhal - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sh.J.S.Sahni

06 Feb 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.    514

                                                Instituted on:      03.10.2017

                                                Decided on:       06.02.2018

 

 

Archana Singhal wife of Sh. Pankaj Singhal, resident of H.No.780, Block-D, Street No.3, Guru Nanak Colony, Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

1.             Lenovo India Private Limited, Ferns Icon, Level 2, Doddenakundi Village, Marathahalli, Outer Ring Road, K.R.Puram, Hubli, Bengaluru through its Managing Director.

2.             R.S. Enterprises,  Near Bhagat Singh Chowk, Gaushala Road, Sangrur through its Proprietor/Partner (Authorised Service Centre of Lenovo Mobiles).

3.             Mahavir Enterprises (Me The Best Price), Prem Basti Road, Opposite D.C. Office, Sangrur through its Proprietor/partner.

                                                        …Opposite parties

 

For the complainant    :               Shri J.S.Sahni, Adv.

For OP No.1&2         :               Shri Sukhdeep Singh, Adv.

For OP No.3              :               Exparte.

 

Quorum:    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                Sarita Garg, Member

                       

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.               Smt. Archana Singhal, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant purchased one mobile set Lenovo Z2 Plus from the OP number 3 vide bill number 045 dated 30.6.2017. Further case of the complainant is that the mobile set in question was having a warranty/guarantee of one year against any defects arises therein.  Further case of the complainant is that in the month of July, 2017, the complainant was shocked to see that the mobile set in question developed the problem of heating up, as such he approached the service centre i.e. OP number 2 at Sangrur and after checking OP number 2 told that there is software problem therein and installed the new software, but the grievance of the complainant is that the problems arose therein again and as such the complainant approached the Op number 2, but the OP number 2 refused to set right the mobile set in question.  Thus, alleging  deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to refund the purchase price of the mobile set in question and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.               In reply filed by OP number 1, it has been admitted that the complainant had purchased the mobile set in question from OP number 3 on 30.6.2017 for Rs.15,000/- which was having one year warranty. It is denied that the OP number 1 has any knowledge about the defects in the mobile set in question.  The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied in toto.  No separate reply has been filed by the OP number 2.

 

3.               Record shows that the OP number 3 did not appear despite service, as such OP number 3 was proceeded exparte.

 

4.               The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-14 copies of documents as well as affidavit and emails and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP number 1 and 2 did not produce any evidence.

 

5.               We have carefully perused the complaint and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

 

6.                 Ex.C-8 is the copy of the invoice issued by OP number 3 to the complainant for sale of the mobile set in question for Rs.15,000/-, which clearly proves that the complainant had purchased the mobile set in question and availed the services of the OP number 3, which has been manufactured by OP number 1, whereas OP number 2 is the service centre of OP number 1.

 

7.               In the present case, the complainant has alleged that during the warranty period in the month of July, 2017 the set in question suffered the problem of heating up, as such, he approached OP number 2 for setting right the problem and the OP number 2 told the complainant that there is software problem and as such the OP number 2 updated the software, which problem again arose in the mobile set thereafter, as such he again approached the OP number 2, but the OP number 2 did not set right the mobile set in question. Further to show that the mobile set in question is defective one, the complainant has produced on record Ex.C-2 the expert report of Damanjit Singh, which clearly says that there is manufacturing defect in the mobile set in question and this report is also supported by his affidavit Ex.C-3.  On the other hand,  the OPs have produced nothing on the record to show that the mobile set in question is in working order or it has no problem therein, whereas the complainant has produced on record copies of various emails such as Ex.C-4 to Exd.C-7.    As such, we are of the considered opinion that the mobile set in question became defective during the warranty period, which was even not repaired by the Ops despite repeatedly visiting of the complainant to the OP number 2.  There is no explanation from the side of the Ops that why the same was not repaired nor the Ops showed any interest during the present proceedings to get the same repaired at their own. As such, we are of the considered opinion that it is a clear case of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Ops.

8.               In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint of the complainant and direct OPs to refund to the complainant an amount of Rs.15,000/-alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint till realisation, however, subject to returning of the mobile set in question along with all the accessories. The OPs shall also pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5000/- in lieu of compensation for mental tension, agony, harassment and  litigation expenses.

9.               This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                February 6, 2018.

                                                (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                     President

                               

 

                                       

                                                     (Sarita Garg)

                                                         Member