Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/585/2017

Somesh Gupta Advocate - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

In Person

02 Feb 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/585/2017
Date of Institution	:	22/08/2017
Date of Decision	:	06/02/2018

 

Somesh Gupta Advocate, R/O H.No.5739, Sector 38 West, Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

1.     Lenovo (India) Pvt. Ltd., Ferns Icon, Level 2, Doddenakundi Village, Marathahalli Outer Ring Road, K.R. Puram, Bangalore 560037, Karnataka through its Customer Care officer.

2.     Sant Rameshwari Enterprises, SCO 26, First Floor, Sector 20-D, Chandigarh through its Proprietor/ Service Centre Manager. 

……Opposite Parties

CORAM :	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	PRESIDING MEMBER
	SHRI RAVINDER SINGH	MEMBER

 

                                                                       

ARGUED BY	:	Complainant in person
	:	OPs ex-parte.

 

Per Surjeet Kaur, Presiding Member

1.         The facts of the consumer complaint, in brief, are that on 24.10.2016, the complainant purchased a Lenovo Vibe K5 Plus mobile phone from the e-portal of Flipkart for Rs.8,499/-. Within nine months of purchase, the complainant noticed that the touch screen of the mobile phone stopped working properly, heating up of battery during charging and some display problem for which he approached OP-2 on 12.8.2017.  However, OP-2 refused to repair the mobile set free of cost and demanded repair cost of Rs.3,990/-. As per the complainant, the handset in question stands locked as the touch screen of the same is not working.  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.         Pursuant to the notice issued, initially Sh. Manwar Singh, Customer Car Executive appeared on behalf of the OPs and the case was adjourned for filing reply and evidence. However, on 8.1.2018, neither anybody appeared on behalf of the OPs nor reply and evidence were filed. Accordingly, OPs 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 complainant.
5.         It is evident from Annexure C-1, coupled with the affidavit of the complainant, that he purchased one Lenovo Vibe K5 Plus mobile phone on 24.10.2016 for Rs.8,499/- from the e-portal of Flipkart which was manufactured by OP-1. The sole grouse of the complainant is that within the warranty period when the mobile set got defective, as per service order (Annexure C-3), OPs refused its repair and demanded repair cost of Rs.3,990/-.
6.         OPs did not appear to contest the claim of the complainant and preferred to proceed against ex-parte.  This act of OPs draws an adverse inference against them.  The non-appearance of OPs shows that they have nothing to say in their defence against the allegations made by the complainant. Therefore, the assertions of the complainant go unrebutted and uncontroverted qua the OPs.
7.         As per the case of the complainant, and as is evident from Annexure C-1, the complainant invested an amount of Rs.8,499/- to buy the branded mobile handset, but, the same got defective within the warranty period and the repair for the same was refused by the OPs stating that the outer touch having yellow patches in display and the same is out of warranty. During the oral argument also, the complainant showed the handset in question which, seen with naked eyes, appeared in very good condition. However, the act of the OPs in non-repairing the same within the warranty period and most importantly non appearing during the proceedings of the present amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part, which certainly caused mental and physical harassment to the complainant.
8.         In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint deserves to succeed and the same is accordingly partly allowed. The OPs are directed as under:-

1. To immediately refund the invoice value of the mobile handset i.e. 8,499/- to the complainant. The complainant shall, however, return the handset in question to the OPs.
2. To pay Rs.5,000/- to the complainant as compensation for mental agony and harassment caused to him;
3. 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 @ 12% 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 arties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-
06/02/2018	[Ravinder Singh]	[Surjeet Kaur]
hg	Member	Presiding Member