BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.

Consumer Complaint No. 478 of 2017

Date of Institution: 21.7.2017

Date of Decision:8.2.2018 

Jasmeet Singh S/o Satbir Singh, R/o 65, East Mohan Nagar, Amritsar M.No. 9780560078

Complainant

Versus

1. Lenovo (India) Pvt.Ltd. Ferns Icon Level-2, Doddenakundi Village Marathahalli Outer Ring Road KR  Puram Hobli, Bagalore-560037 through its Director/Manager/Authorized signatory (Importer)
2. Lenovo & Motorola Service Centre Near Kamal Palace, Batala Road, Amritsar through its Manager/Authorized Signatory (Mobile No. 9914731677 and Land Line No. 0183-5019797) (Service Centre)

Opposite Parties

Complaint under section 11 & 12  of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date.

Present: For the Complainant           :In person

              For the Opposite Party  No.1       :  Sh. Sumant Tuteja,Advocate

              For the Opposite Party No.2        :  Ex-parte

Coram:

Sh.Anoop Sharma, Presiding Member

Ms.Rachna Arora,Member     

Order dictated by:

Ms.Rachna Arora, Member

1. Jasmeet Singh complainant has brought the instant complaint under section 11 & 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986  on the allegations that   complainant purchased one mobile handset of Lenovo make vide No. 862312033932464-862312033932472 for a sum of Rs. 7499/- vide Invoice No. FOYO103117-00600558 dated 20.10.2016. Right from the beginning of purchase and delivery of the said handset  the same was having touch screen problem and it was not functioning properly. The complainant approached the opposite party No.2 which is the service centre for the product purchased by the complainant and lodged a complaint. But the opposite party refused to entertain the complaint on the ground that the handset was having scratches on it. It was submitted that the reason “scratches” is not tenable under the law for setting right the handset which become defective during the warranty period. Minor scratches are always appear on all the handsets which are being used by the consumers  and there is no sufficient reason for refusing the service to the complainant. The complainant has spent huge amount in  purchasing the said mobile set. The complainant moved the complaints to the opposite party No.2  including complaint ID No. 170605/006921, but the opposite party did not take any action in the matter . The complainant again visited the opposite party No.2  with the request to do the needful, but to no avail. The aforesaid acts of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service, unfair trade practice which has caused mental agony, harassment and inconvenience to the complainant . Vide instant complaint, complainant has sought for the following reliefs:-

1. Opposite parties be directed either to replace the handset in question with new one of the same make or model or in the alternative the price of the mobile handset alongwith interest be refunded to the complainant ;
2. Compensation of Rs. 20000/- alongwith litigation expenses may also be awarded to the complainant.

Hence, this complaint.

2.       Upon notice, opposite party No.1 appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that as per the Customer Relationship Management data base of the answering opposite party, there was no call log immediately after the date of purchase as alleged by the complainant. Later the complainant visited the service centre reporting touch screen issues. The handset was thoroughly examined and the personnel of the service centre found that the handset was CID (customer induced damage). Since it was a customer induced damage , the handset was clearly out of warranty. That the problem in any manner is not attributable to any alleged defect in manufacture or to deficiency in service on the part of the answering opposite party.  It was submitted that the authorized service provider of the answering opposite party had also informed the complainant that the service would be provided on chargeable basis. However, the complainant refused to accept the service of the authorized service centre on chargeable basis  and therefore, the handset was returned to the complainant.  It was submitted that in the instant complaint, the left upper side of the touch screen of the handset was found damaged in the handset of the complainant and the same was a “CID” issue i.e. Customer Induced Damage” That such physical damage caused by the complainant was not covered under warranty. The authorized service provider of the answering opposite party had also informed the complainant that the service would be provided on chargeable basis, hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering opposite party. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.

3.       Opposite party No.2 did not opt to put in appearance despite service of notice, as such it was ordered to be proceeded against ex-parte.

4.       In his bid to prove the case complainant tendered into evidence his duly sworn affidavit Ex.C-1, coy of e-mail Ex.C-2, copy of bill Ex.C-3, copy of e-mail Ex.C-4 and closed his evidence.

5.       To rebut the aforesaid evidence Sh.Sumant Tuteja,Adv.counsel for opposite party No.1 tendered into evidence duly sworn affidavit of Sh.Shankara Narayanan Parkash, Tech.Manager Ex.OP1/A, copy of resolution  Ex.OP1/1, copy of trouble shooting instructions given by the opposite party Ex.OP1/2, copy of terms and condition of warranty of the company Ex.OP1/3 and closed the evidence on behalf of opposite party No.1.

6.       We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the record on the file.

7.       The complainant has submitted his affidavit Ex.C-1 in which he has reiterated the facts as narrated in the complaint and has contended that complainant purchased one mobile handset of Lenovo make vide No. 862312033932464-862312033932472 for a sum of Rs. 7499/- vide Invoice No. FOYO103117-00600558 dated 20.10.2016. Right from the beginning of purchase and delivery of the said handset  the same was having touch screen problem and it was not functioning properly. The complainant approached the opposite party No.2 which is the service centre for the product purchased by the complainant and lodged a complaint. But the opposite party  No.2 refused to entertain the complaint on the ground that the handset was having scratches on it. It was submitted that the reason “scratches” is not tenable under the law for setting right the handset which become defective during the warranty period. Minor scratches are always appear on all the handsets which are being used by the consumers  and there is no sufficient reason for refusing the service to the complainant. The complainant moved the complaints to the opposite party No.2  including complaint ID No. 170605/006921, but the opposite party did not take any action in the matter . The aforesaid acts of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service, unfair trade practice which has caused mental agony, harassment and inconvenience to the complainant.

8.       On the other hand the opposite party No.1 has repelled the aforesaid contentions of the complainant on the ground that as per the Customer Relationship Management data base of the answering opposite party, there was no call log immediately after the date of purchase as alleged by the complainant. However, later-on the complainant visited the service centre reporting touch screen issues and the handset was thoroughly examined and the personnel of the service centre and it was found that since  it was a Customer Induced Damage , the handset was clearly out of warranty. That the problem in any manner is not attributable to any alleged defect in manufacture or to deficiency in service on the part of the answering opposite party.  It was submitted that the authorized service provider of the answering opposite party had also informed the complainant that the service would be provided on chargeable basis. However, the complainant refused to accept the service of the authorized service centre on chargeable basis  and therefore, the handset was returned to the complainant and hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering opposite party.

9.       From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and averments of the complainant and evidence produced on record by the complainant, it stands proved on record that the complainant purchased the mobile set in question through online system and the said mobile became defective and there was the problem/defect of its touch screen and it was not properly functioning. The complainant approached  opposite party No.2 i.e. authorized service centre, but  the opposite party  refused to entertain the complaint  on the ground that the handset is having scratches on it. The complainant approached the opposite party with the touch screen problem during the warranty period  and in this regard complainant has produced on record e-mails sent to the opposite party, copies of which are Ex.C-2 and Ex.C-3 which fully proves that the complainant contacted the opposite party with touch screen problem on 7.6.2017 i.e. within the warranty period. The only ground of refusal of the  opposite party  is that it was a Customer Induced Damage , the handset was clearly out of warranty as the problem in any manner is not attributable to any alleged defect in manufacture or to deficiency in service on the part of the answering opposite party. But the ground of refusal of the opposite party that it was a Customer Induced Damage is not tenable as scratches may occur due to use of the mobile handset by the customer and it does not mean that due to scratches the touch screen became defective. Nowadays every person prefer to purchase the mobile having touch screen function and with the passage of time there may occur scratches to every mobiles and it does not mean that the scratches in the mobile of the complainant have occurred due to physical damage. The opposite party also failed to prove that the mobile of the complainant became defective due to physical damage and simply refused to set right the mobile of the complainant by making a false ground that as it was physical damage , as such the same does not cover under the warranty period and the repair would be carried out on chargeable basis. However,  as the mobile handset of the complainant became defective during the warranty period, as such in our considered opinion, the Opposite Parties shall repair the Mobile Set  in dispute to the satisfaction of the complainant free of cost, within 30 days from the receipt of the copy of this order. In case the opposite parties fails to repair the mobile handset of the complainant to the satisfaction of the complainant in that eventuality, the opposite parties are liable to replace the mobile set of the complainant with new one of same make or model or in the alternative to refund the price of the Mobile Set  in dispute to the tune of Rs. 7499/- alongwith interest @6% per annum from the date of passing of this order until full and final recovery. All the Opposite Parties are held to be liable jointly, severally and co-extensively. The complaint stands allowed accordingly.   Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated : 8.2.2018