Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/167/2017

Jaskaran Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Brijesh Khosla

01 Aug 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/167/2017
Date of Institution	:	21/02/2017
Date of Decision	:	01/08/2017

 

Jaskaran Singh son of Sh. Baldip Singh resident of #1496, Sector 29-B, Chandigarh, Postal Code 160030.

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

1.     Lenovo India Pvt. Ltd. FERNS ICON, Level-2 Doddenakundi Village, Marathhalli Outer Ring Road, Marathhalli Post, KR Puram Hobli, Bangalore-560037 through its Chief General Manager.

2.     Sant Rameshwari Enterprises, Customer Care Address SCO 26, First Floor, Sector 20-D, Chandigarh PO 160020 through its Manager.

……Opposite Parties

 

CORAM :	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	PRESIDING MEMBER
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                                                       

 

 

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Brijesh Khosla, Counsel for complainant
	:	OPs ex-parte

Per Surjeet Kaur, Presiding Member

1.         The facts of the consumer complaint, in brief, are that the complainant purchased a Lenovo K6 Note 3 + 32 GB from M/s Electro Enterprises, Chandigarh vide invoice dated 26.12.2016 (Annexure C-1).  Within one month of its purchase, the phone developed hardware issue regarding speaker of the phone.  The complainant approached the service centre of the company i.e. OP-2 where job sheet dated 23.1.2017 was opened and it was stated that the same would be repaired within 3-4 days, but, it failed to do so.  Thereafter a lot many e-mails (Annexure C-5 to C-8) were exchanged between the complainant and the OPs but every time unsatisfactory reply was given and OPs remained silent on how much time would they take to resolve the problem in the handset. Finally the complainant sent a legal notice dated 9.2.2017 to the OPs, but, to no avail.  Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
2.         Initially Sh. Manwar Singh, Customer Care Executive appeared on behalf of the OPs and the case was adjourned for filing reply and evidence. But, subsequently neither the reply and evidence were filed, nor anybody appeared on behalf of the OPs, therefore, vide order dated 20.4.2017, they were proceeded ex-parte.
3.         The complainant led evidence in support of his contentions. 
4.         We have gone through the record and heard the arguments addressed by the learned Counsel for the complainant.
5.         It is evident from Annexure C-1, coupled with the affidavit of the complainant, that he purchased one Lenovo K6 Note 3 + 32 GB from M/s Electro Enterprises, SCO 1039, Sector 22-B (Opp. Bus Stand), Chandigarh. The case of the complainant is that as per Annexure C-3, the handset in question got some problem regarding speaker of the phone and, therefore, the same was submitted to OP-2 for necessary repairs on 23.1.2017 i.e. within one month of its purchase. The sole grouse of the complainant is that since then the handset is in possession of OP-2 and despite various email communications (Annexure C-5 to C-8) between the OP and the complainant, the grievance of the complainant has not been redressed. Neither the handset has been repaired nor returned to the complainant till date. Even the legal notice dated 9.2.2017 (Annexure C-9) was not replied by the OPs.  The complainant has also filed his duly sworn affidavit in support of his contentions.
6.         The evidence adduced by the complainant has gone unrebutted as, despite due service, OPs did not opt to appear and contest the claim of the complainant which also amounts to implied admission of the claim.  Hence the OPs are proved to be deficient in rendering proper services.
7.         A bare perusal of the terms and conditions of service (Annexure C-4) at column No.12 reads as under :-

“12.  Lenovo Service Center shall make all efforts to ensure that Product is repaired within (10) days from the date of the receipt of faulty product. At times however, due to non-availability/shortage of critical spare parts or complicated fault, the repair turnaround time may take longer than the indicated time for delivery in the Job Sheet. Lenovo Service Center will not be responsible for any loss/losses whatsoever in the event of the delay for such aforementioned reasons.”

Despite its own terms and conditions, neither the phone of the complainant has been repaired nor returned to him by the OPs, till date, in spite of several requests and legal notice.  No positive action was taken by the OPs to redress the genuine grievance of the complainant by becoming silent on each and every communication and by not conveying the actual status of the job sheet whether there was shortage of part or complicated fault which was causing delay.

8.         In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint deserves to succeed.  The same is accordingly partly allowed. The OPs are directed as under:-

(i)     To refund the amount of Rs.13,200/- to the complainant being the invoice price of the handset in question.;

(ii)    To pay to the complainant Rs.5,000/- as compensation for mental agony, physical pain and inconvenience caused;

(iii)   To pay to the complainant Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation. 

9.         This order be complied with by the OPs within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
10.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

 

	Sd/-	Sd/-
01/08/2017	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]
hg	Member	Presiding Member