DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, NORTH-WEST
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
CSC-BLOCK-C, POCKET-C, SHALIMAR BAGH, DELHI-110088.
CC No: 849/2016
D.No._______________________ Dated: __________________
IN THE MATTER OF:
VIKRAM S/o SH. SATYANARAYAN,
R/o A-56/4, SURAJ PARK, SEC.-18,
ROHINI, DELHI-110085.… COMPLAINANT
Versus
LENOVO INDIA PVT. LTD.,
(THROUGH ITS GENERAL MANAGER),
AT VATLKA BUSINESS PARK, 1st FLOOR,
SOHNA ROAD, TOWER-1, SECTOR-49,
GURGAON-122001 (HARYANA). … OPPOSITE PARTY
CORAM:SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT
SH. BARIQ AHMED, MEMBER
MS. USHA KHANNA, MEMBER
Date of Institution: 11.08.2016
Date of decision:29.04.2019
MS. USHA KHANNA, MEMBER
ORDER
1. The complainant has filed the present complaint against OP under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 therebyalleging that on 28.04.2016, the complainant purchased a mobile handset model Lenovo Vibe S1 bearing IMEI no. 867267023081257 from Cloudtail India Pvt. Ltd. i.e. Amazon vide Order ID 403-3523580-9041145 for a sum of Rs.13099/- and the complainant was updating
CC No.849/2016 Page 1 of 4
the mobile handset just after 20 days of purchase but during the updating process the mobile handset got hanged and stopped working. Thereafter, the complainant visited the authorized service centre on 21.05.2016 where the complainant was informed that it was small software issue but after 2 days service centre informed that its motherboard needs to be replaced and it will take one more week to get it done. On 24.05.2016, the complainant wrote a mail on to the consumer helpline of OP and requested them to change his mobile handset, reply to that was received after 20 hours but the problem of the complainant still remained unsolved and again the complainant sent a mail to the concerned person of OP but still problem remained unsolved. Thereafter, despite of many telephonic reminders and e-mails by the complainant to OP, OP failed to solve the problem of the complainant and did not bother about the genuine request of the complainant and the complainant after trying his level best and after seeing the adamant and arbitrary nature of OP, the complainant received his mobile phone back from the service centre on 28.05.2016 after necessary repair done by the service centre but as on today also the mobile handset is not working properly and the complainant is still facing problem in using the same. The complainant further alleged that the complainant sent a legal notice on 30.06.2016 to OP through his Counsel but till today no reply to
CC No.849/2016 Page 2 of 4
the said notice is received by the complainant or his Counsel which shows the bad intention of OP and the complainant accordingly alleged that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP.
2. On these allegations the complainant has filed the complaint praying for direction to the OP to refund the amount of the said mobile handset i.e. Rs.13,099/- aswell as compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for causing him mental agony and harassment and has also sought litigation expenses of Rs.25,000/-.
3. Notice was issued to OP through speed post for appearance on 24.10.2016, the notice was delivered to OP on 10.09.2016 as per track report and none has appeared on behalf of OP and as such OP has been proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 18.01.2017.
4. 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 nil for purchase of mobile handset bearing IMEI no. 867267023081265 for a total value of Rs.13,099/- issued by Cloudtail India Pvt. Ltd. and copy of legal notice dated nil sent by the complainant through his Counsel to OP by Regd. AD/UPC alongwith postal receipt.
5.This forum has considered the case of the complainant in the light of evidence and documents placed on record by the complainant. The complainant has failed to prove his case on merits. The complainant
CC No.849/2016 Page 3 of 4
has not placed on record any job sheet issued by the service centre. The complainant has also failed to placed on record copies of e-mail communications between the complainant and OP. Moreover, the copy of purchase invoice also shows that there is difference in IMEI no. of the mobile handset. For the foregoing reasons, this Forum is of opinion that the complainant has failed to prove his case on the merits. Accordingly, the case is dismissed having no merits.
6. 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 29th day of April, 2019.
BARIQ AHMED USHA KHANNA M.K. GUPTA
(MEMBER) (MEMBER) (PRESIDENT)
CC No.849/2016 Page 4 of 4
