Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/700/2015

Sonia - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

In person

08 Apr 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

 

 

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/700/2015
Date of Institution	:	15/10/2015
Date of Decision	:	08/04/2016

 

Sonia d/o Sh. Satpal resident of House No.2222, New Indira Colony, Manimajra, Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

1.     Lenovo India Pvt. Ltd., through its Regional Manager, Vatlka Business Park, 1^st Floor, Badsah Pur Road, Sec-49, Sohna Road, Gurgaon-122001.

2.     Anmol Watches and Electronics (P) Ltd., through its proprietor, SCO No.1012-13, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh authorized dealer of the Lenovo India Pvt. Ltd.

3.     B2X-003 Sant Rameshwari Enterprises a certified Lenovo Authorized Service Centre, SCO No.26, Sector 20-D, Chandigarh through its owner

……Opposite Parties

 

 

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

                                       

                                                                       

ARGUED BY	:	Complainant in person
	:	Sh. Ashim Aggarwal, Counsel for OP-1
	:	OPs 2 & 3 ex-parte.

                       

PER SURJEET KAUR, PRESIDING MEMBER

1.         Ms. Sonia, complainant has filed this consumer complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against Lenovo India Pvt. Ltd. and others, Opposite Parties (hereinafter called the OPs), alleging that on 5.6.2015, she purchased a mobile Lenovo VIBE X2 Gold from OP-2 for Rs.18,990/-.  However, after a few days, the mobile stopped working properly due to technical problem and the complainant approached the service centre many times, but, it failed to remove the problem. The complainant has averred that the company even failed to change the mobile set with a new one.  Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
2.         In its written reply, OP-1 has denied that OP-3 is its authorized agent. It has also been denied that the service centre failed to rectify the defect. It has been contended that the mobile phone was duly repaired on two occasions where it required parts replacement and software was upgraded on one occasion. Thus, the mobile was always repaired under warranty and there was no necessity to replace the phone. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, OP-1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3.         OPs 2 & 3 did not appear despite due service, therefore, they were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 21.1.2016.
4.         In her rejoinder, the complainant has controverted the stand of OP-1 and reiterated her own.
5.         The contesting parties led evidence in support of their contentions. 
6.         We have gone through the record and heard the arguments addressed by the complainant in person and learned counsel for OP-1.
7.         It is evident from Annexure C-1, which is a copy of the bill, that the complainant purchased one Lenovo Vibe mobile handset from OP-2 on 5.6.2015 for Rs.18,990/-. Annexure C-2 dated 1.9.2015 is the job sheet with complaint of charging and overheating.  As per the case of the complainant, she approached the service centre many times, but, it failed to remove the problem.  Neither the defect was rectified nor the OPs could offer the exchange of the mobile handset with a new one. 
8.         The stand taken by OP-1 is that OP-3 is not its authorized agent. The required parts were replaced and software was upgraded whenever the complainant approached the service station.  The product in question was always repaired under warranty and there was no necessity to replace the same.
9.         Pertinently, OPs 1 & 2 did not appear to contest the case and chose to be proceeded as ex-parte. 
10.         Evidently, OP-1 has admitted in para 2 of its written statement that on 28.7.2015 PCB was replaced under warranty.  Further, it has been contended that on 1.9.2015 when the charging problem was reported, it was observed that some part was needed to be replaced which was not readily available with the service centre; meaning thereby that the handset in question got defective very frequently within three months of its purchase. We feel that when a person spends a huge amount of Rs.18,990/- on the purchase of a mobile handset, he hopes to enjoy the product for at least a year or so.  However, admittedly, that is not the case in the present complaint and the problems were reoccurring in the mobile handset.
11.         Further in para 4 of the written statement of OP-1, it is clearly written as under :-

                        “If your Service Provider determines that it is unable to repair your product, your Service Provider will replace it with one that is at least functionally equivalent.

                        If the service provider determines that it is unable to either repair or replace your product, your sole remedy under this limited warranty is to return the product to your place to purchase or to Lenovo for a refund of your purchase price.”

As the part to be replaced was not readily available with the OPs, therefore, they could not make the complainant wait for a long time and instead, in terms of the above, replacement thereof must have been offered to her, but, they failed to do so.  Hence, the act of the OPs in selling a poor quality product to the complainant, replacement of major parts within a short span of its usage and non-repairing of the same within the warranty period due to non-availability of the required parts points out towards deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part.

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

(i)     To refund the invoice price of the handset in question i.e. Rs.18,990/- to the complainant.

(ii)    To pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant;

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

13.         This order be complied with by the OPs within one month 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 filing of the present complaint till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
14.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-
08/04/2016	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]
hg	Member	Presiding Member