Haryana

Karnal

CC/61/2018

Subhash Goyal - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Vinesh Vats

17 Feb 2020

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No. 61 of 2018

                                                          Date of instt.09.03.2018

                                                          Date of Decision 17.02.2020

 

Subhash Goyal, Goyal Baan and Rope Store, near Devi Mandir, Indri, District Karnal.

 

                                                 …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1. Lenovo India Pvt. Ltd. Vatika Business Park 1^st floor, Badshapur Road, Sector-49, Sohna Road, Gurgaon.

2. Tara Tele & Mobile Shop no.35, MEla Ram School Market, Karnal near Sachdeva Hospital Karnal through its proprietor.

                                                                        …..Opposite Parties.

 

           Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 

 

Before    Sh. Jaswant Singh……President. 

      Sh.Vineet Kaushik ………..Member

                Dr. Rekha Chaudhary…….Member

 

 Present:  Shri Vinesh Vats Advocate for complainant.

                   Opposite party no.1 exparte.

                   Shri Amit Sachdeva Advocate for opposite party no.2.

                                              

                   (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:                    

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 on the averments that complainant had purchased one mobile phone make Lenovo PIMA40 online on 05.07.2016 for a sum of Rs.6999/-, vide invoice no.20160700041758 with the warranty of one year. Just after one month from the purchase of the mobile set the touch problem, power keys and there is also a problem in the mother board of the mobile phone. Complainant approached the OPs and submitted the mobile phone in the service centre and narrated the whole problem vide complaint no.170502011316. But the OPs neither removed the defects nor handed over the mobile to the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant made complaint before the National Consumer Helpline, vide complaint no.284458 and also made complaint through e-mail smartphone @lenovo.com, but till neither today neither the defects have been removed nor the defective mobile hand set repaired. It is further submitted that the mobile set is also lying in the service centre from 24.04.2017 till today. It is alleged that OPs have provided the defective set. The complainant requested OPs to replace the defective set but officials of the OPs postponed the matter on one pretext or the other and finally totally refused to replace the defective set. Due to the act and conduct of the OPs the complainant has suffered mental pain and agony. In this way there was deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence complainant filed the present complaint.

2.             Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, OP no.1 did not appear and proceeded against exparte, vide order dated 03.09.2019.

3.             OP no.2 appeared and filed written version stating therein that the complainant has wrongly impleaded the OP no.2 as a party to the present complaint. OP no.2 was a service provider of Lenovo India through the HCL Technology (The authorized service provider of Lenovo India) company under the contract of services on behalf of Lenovo India company and since May, 2017, the OP no.2 has dissolved the contract of services with Lenovo India (through HCL Technology) and from the period of May 2017, the OP no.2 is not an service provider of Data Wind company. It is pertinent to mention here that prior to the date 20, May 2017 the services to complainant has been provided as per instructions/conditions of warranty on behalf of Lenovo India and the OP was only a service provider of Lenovo India & for any deficiency in service on the part of Lenovo India, the OP no.2 is not responsible. It is further stated that the alleged unit of complainant was received for repair as per and in the capacity of the indirect service provider through HCL technology and since the Lenovo Company has dissolved the contract of services with HCL Technology and as such, the OP no.2 is an indirect service provider for Lenovo Company through HCL Technology, the alleged unit has been returned alongwith all outstanding belongings of Lenovo Company and the unit of complainant has been returned to Lenovo Company through HCL Technology and same was intimated to complainant. It is further stated that the liability to provide the services to consumer is solely lies on the manufacturer of the unit i.e. Lenovo Company and the cause of action arises only against the manufacturer of the alleged unit. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP no.2. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.             Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C9 and closed the evidence on 15.11.2019.

5.             On the other hand, OP no.2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sachin Kumar Ex.OP2/A and document Ex.O1 and closed the evidence on 31.01.2020.

6.             We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

7.             The case of the complainant is that he purchased one mobile phone make Lenovo PIMA40 online on 05.07.2016 for a sum of Rs.6999/- vide invoice no.20160700041758 with the warranty of one year. Just after one month from the purchase of the mobile set the touch problem, power keys and there is also a problem in the mother board of the mobile phone. Complainant approached the OPs and submitted the mobile phone in the service centre and narrated the whole problem vide complaint no.170502011316. But the OPs neither removed the defects nor handed over the mobile to the complainant.

8.             On the other hand, the case of the OP no.2 is that complainant has wrongly impleaded the OP no.2 as a party to the present complaint. OP no.2 was a service provider of Lenovo India through the HCL Technology and from the period of May, 2017, the OP no.2 is not an service provider of Data Wind Company and for deficiency in service on the part of Lenovo India, the OP no.2 is not responsible. Further, the OP no.2 sent the mobile to the manufacturer company alongwith all belongings as the OP had quit to provide the service of repair on behalf of Lenovo Company since May 2017 and same has acknowledge to complainant.

8.             It is not disputed that complainant purchased the mobile set in question of the OP no.1 company, copy of bill is Ex.C1. Complainant visited the office of OP no.2 i.e. service centre of the company for repair of his mobile and submitted the mobile with him but the OPs neither removed the defects nor handed over the mobile to the complainant. In order to prove his case complainant filed his affidavit Ex.CW1/1. Complainant made a written complaint Ex.C2 to OP no.1 regarding the defect in mobile set in question but OP no.1 has no action on the complaint of complaint. To prove his complaint complainant further placed on record copy of job sheet Ex.C3, copy of legal notice, acknowledgement and receipt Ex.C5 to Ex.C9. After perusal of the document filed by the complainant it is well proved that the complainant purchased the mobile set on 05.07.2016 and after one month it created problem. This fact is not denied by the OP no.2. but OP no.2 stated that he had quit to provide the service of repair on behalf of Lenovo Company since May 2017.  Hence, it is well proved that the mobile set in question was become defective within warranty period. It is duty of the OP no.1 to repair/replace the defective phone within warranty period but OP no.1 failed to do so. Thus, the service of OP no.1 was deficient and complainant is duly entitled for getting replaced/ refund of price of mobile set in question.

9.             Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OP no.1 to replace the mobile set in question to the complainant with new one of the same value, same make and model which was purchased by the complainant. However, it is hereby made clear that if the mobile set of the same make and model is not available with the OP no.1, then the OP no.1 will return the cost of the mobile set in question i.e. Rs.6999/- to the complainant. We further direct the OP no.1 to pay Rs.2000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and for the litigation expenses. This order shall be complied within 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:17.02.2020

                                                                       

                                                                  President,

                                                           District Consumer Disputes

                                                           Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 

                                                                                                       

        (Vineet Kaushik)          (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)

            Member                               Member