Delhi

North West

CC/502/2016

SUNIL GUPTA - Complainant(s)

Versus

LENOVO INDIA PVT.LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

14 Dec 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, NORTH-WEST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CSC-BLOCK-C, POCKET-C, SHALIMAR BAGH, DELHI-110088.

 

CC No: 502/2016

D.No._______________________                   Dated: __________________

IN THE MATTER OF:

 

SUNIL GUPTA S/o LATE SH. R.D. GUPTA,

R/o J-73B, LIG FLATS PHASE-I,

ASHOK VIHAR, DELHI-110052.                            … COMPLAINANT

 

   Versus

 

1. LENOVO (INDIA) PVT/ LTD.,

    HEAD OFFICE AT: FERNS ICON LEVEL-2,

DODDENAKUNDI VILLAGE, MARATHAHALLI,

OUT RING ROAD, K.R. PURAM, HUBLI,

BANGLORE-560037, KARNATAKA (INDIA).

 

2. M/s W.S. RETAIL SERVICES PVT. LTD.,

    OZONE MANY TECH PARK No. 56/18, B-BLOCK,

    09^th FLOOR, GARVEY BHAVI PALYA, HOSUR ROAD,

    BANGLORE-560068, KARNATAKA (INDIA).

 

3. M/s HCL ROHINI,

    AT SHOP No. 156, AGGARWAL CITY PLAZA,

 MANGALAM PLACE, SECTOR-03, NEAR M2K,

    ROHINI, DELHI-110085.                … OPPOSITE PARTY(IES)

 

 

CORAM :SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT

          SH. BARIQ AHMED, MEMBER

MS. USHA KHANNA, MEMBER   

                                                          Date of Institution: 06.05.2016

                                               Date of decision:14.12.2017

SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT

ORDER

1.       The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OP under section 12 of the consumer protection act, 1986 thereby

CC No. 502/2016                                                                           Page 1 of 6

          alleging that the complainant purchased a Lenovo Mobile handset A-6000 for a sum of Rs.6,999/- in cash vide bill/invoice no. #DEL20150300368428 dated 30.03.2015 with a warrantee and assurance of being a genuine product and good after sale service from OP-2 and the complainant was using the said mobile handset since 30.03.2015 but after six months of the purchase of the mobile handset, the mobile handset started hanging, over-heating and charging problem was therein the mobile handset. The complainant further alleged that owing to the above stated problems occurring in the mobile handset the complainant approached OP-3 i.e. service center for the repair in the month of October-2015 and then the officials of OP-3 asked to leave the mobile handset for that day only and they upgraded the mobile handset but the issue was not resolved and the problem still subsisted and even after upgrading of the mobile handset by the officials of OP-3 the problem as earlier was not resolved and the complainant therefore visited service center on several other occasion in the month of October, December of 2015 and January, March & April of 2016 but on every such occasion they only upgraded the mobile handset and never resolved the issue to the satisfaction level of the complainantand mobile handset still lying in dead condition as the mobile handset could not be charged due to inherent manufacturing defects. The

CC No. 502/2016                                                                           Page 2 of 6

          complainant further alleged that the complainant sent a legal notice dated 11.04.2016 to the OPs through his counsel by speed post but till date no reply has been sent by the OPs and the complainant accordingly alleged that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs.  

2.       On these allegations the complainant has filed the complaint praying for direction to the OPs to refund the amount of Rs.6,999/- being the price of mobile set as well as compensation of Rs.55,000/- for causing him mental agony and harassment and has also sought litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/-.

3.       OP-1 & OP-2 have been contesting the case and filed reply/written statement. In its written statement, OP-1 submitted that the complaint is notmaintainable, baseless, misconceived and is liable to be dismissed. OP-1 further submitted that the handset was deposited with the authorized service center of OP-1 on 26.10.2015 vide SRIN1201510260026 in relation to charging, overheating, battery issue, etc. and the service center thoroughly examined the mobile handset of the complainant and to address the grievances of the complainant the USB cable of the mobile handset of the complainant was replaced free of cost under warrantee and the mobile handset was delivered to the complainant the same day after carrying out the necessary rectification and part replacement under

CC No. 502/2016                                                                           Page 3 of 6

          warrantee. OP-1 further submitted that the Lenovo Limited Warrantee states that:

                    “If your service provider determines that it is unable to either repair or replace your product your service provider will replace it with one that is functionally equivalent.

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

 

4.       OP-2 in its reply submitted that the complaint is liable to be dismissed and not maintainable against OP-2.

5.       The complainant did not file rejoinder.

6.       In order to prove his case the complainant filed his affidavit in evidence and also filed written arguments. The complainant also placed on record copy of retail invoice dated 30.03.2015 for purchase of mobile set for a total value of Rs.6,999/-, copy of token no. W-21 dated 06.04.2016 and copy of legal notice dated 11.04.2016 sent by the complainant to the OPs through his counsel by speed post alongwith postal receipts.  

7.       On the other hand, Sh. Shankara Narayanan Prakash,Senior Technical Manager-Smartphone Contact Center ofOP-1 filed his affidavit in evidence and Mrs. Swati Singh, Authorized Signatory of OP-2 filed her affidavit in evidence. OP-1 & OP-2 have also filed written arguments.

8.       This forum has considered the case of the complainant in the light

CC No. 502/2016                                                                           Page 4 of 6

          of evidence of both the parties and documents placed on record by the complainant. The case of the complainant has remained consistent and undoubted. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the case of the complainant. As already observed the OP has failed to disclose as to why the specific problems in the mobile set could not be repaired. The complainant is not expected and made to visit the service centre of OP of and on. The OPs are under a legal obligation to rectify the defect immediately in a new product sold by them. The OPs are under a legal and moral responsibility to sell such products in the market after their complete check-up. From the evidence led by the complainant it appears that the defect in the mobile phone has not been rectified despite efforts and it appears that there has been a manufacturing and inherent defect in the mobile handset. Accordingly, the OP-1 & OP-3 are held guilty of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.

9.       Accordingly, OP-1 &3 jointly or severally are directed as under:

i)        To refund to the complainant an amount of Rs.6,999/- being the price of mobile phone on return of the mobile phone alongwith all the accessories and bill/invoice by the complainant.

ii)       To pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- as compensation towards mental agony and  harassment caused to the complainant which includes cost of litigation.

CC No. 502/2016                                                                           Page 5 of 6

10.      The above amount shall be paid by the OP-1 &3 jointly or severally to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receiving copy of this order failing which OP-1 &OP-3 shall be liable to pay interest on the entire awarded amount @ 10% per annum from the date of receiving copy of this order till the date of payment. The complainant will return old handset/mobile, original bill with all accessories to the OPs. If OP-1 &OP-3 fail to comply with the order within 30 days from the date of receiving copy of this order, the complainant may approach this Forum u/s 25 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

11.     Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.

Announced on this 14^thday of December, 2017.

 

 

 

 

BARIQ AHMED                         USHA KHANNA                         M.K. GUPTA

   (MEMBER)                                 (MEMBER)                              (PRESIDENT)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CC No. 502/2016                                                                           Page 6 of 6