Jammu and Kashmir

Jammu

CC/686/2017

ANIL RAZDAN - Complainant(s)

Versus

LENOVO INDIA - Opp.Party(s)

NAVEEN DUTT

28 May 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,JAMMU

(Constituted under J&K Consumer Protection Act,1987)

                                                          .

 Case File  No.                232/DFJ           

 Date of  Institution   :    21-09-2017

 Date of Decision      :     29-05-2018

 

Anil Razdan,

S/O S.No.Razdan,

R/O H.No.116 Upper Laxmi Nagar,

Sarwal,Jammu.

                                                                                                                                                Complainant

                             V/S

1.Manager,Lenovo Service Centre,

 H.No.248-A(Pvt.)Ist Floor Gandhi Nagar,

Jammu.

2.Lenovo (India)Pvt.Ltd.Ferns Icon Level 2,

Doddenakundi Village Marathahalli Outer Ring

Road,K.R.Puram Hobli Banglore-560037,

Through its Manager.

3.Flipkart through its Manager,W.S.Retail Services Pvt.Ltd,

  Ozone Manay Tech Park No.56/18,B-Block,9^th Floor,

Garvebhavipalya,HosurvRoad,Banglorwe-560068.

                                                                                                                                                                Opposite parties

    

 CORAM

                  Khalil Choudhary    (Distt.& Sessions Judge)   President

                  Ms.Vijay Angral                                                       Member

                  Mr.Ghulam Sarwar Chauhan                                Member.

 

In the matter of: Complaint under section 10 of J&K Consumer

                              Protection Act 1987.

 

Mr.Naveen Dutt ,Advocate for complainant, present.

Nemo for OPs.

                                                                  ORDER

 

                          Facts relevant for the disposal of complaint on hand are that complainant said to have purchased handset Lenovo Vibe K5 Note(Gold 32 GB) from OP3 on,21-08-2016 for a sale consideration of Rs.13,499/-(copy of bill Annexure-A). Allegation of complainant is that the handset  within eleven months from its purchase, handset was marred by defect, complainant approached OP1,which is the authorized service centre of  Lenovo having its office at Gandhi Nagar,Jammu and  the office of OP11 retained the handset of complainant and issued memo (Annexure-B).Complainant further submitted that at the time of handing over of the handset to OP1 the screen of the handset was broken, but the touch was in excellent working condition. Complainant further submitted that the screen of the handset was broken in the month of April 2017 when he put the handset in his jeans pent pocket alongwith office key. Allegation of complainant is that after depositing of the handset with the office of OP1 the attendant boy in the office told him to visit after 10 days for collection of handset till then the handset of complainant will be ready for delivery after rectification of problem as mentioned in the receipt dated 21-07-2017. Complainant further submitted that he again visited the office of OP1 after expiry of 10 days, but the handset of complainant was not ready for delivery  and he was being told to wait for 4/5 days,complainant waited for 4/5 days and again visited the office of OP1 and this time again the attendant boy in the office of OP1 told him that there are some problem in the handset like processor is not properly functional. That the complainant on hearing this apprised attendant boy in the office of OP2 that at the time of handing over the handset it was working properly even with broken screen but there was only mic problem which required to be rectified, complainant requested the attendant boy to hand over his handset immediately but the attendant boy in the office of OP1 after search failed to lay his hands and requested complainant to visit the office of OP1 on the very next day till then he will be ready with the handset. That the complainant alongwith his daughter after two days again visited the office of OP1 at Gandhi Nagar Jammu, but this time also he left the service centre of OP1 empty hands as the handset was not traceable.Further allegation of complainant is that he repeatedly approached OPs for redressal of his grievance,but all in vain.Submission of complainant is that failure of Ops to provide after sale service, constitutes deficiency in service,therefore,complainant seeks direction to Ops for refund of cost of handset to the tune of Rs,13,499/- In addition, complainant also prays for compensation under different heads to the tune of Rs.1,20,000/-.

                         Notices were sent to the Ops alongwith copies of complaint through registered covers with acknowledgment due and as per record the notices were received by the Ops, but Ops did not choose to represent their case in this Forum, either to admit the claim of complainant or to deny the same within stipulated period provided under the Act, so their right to file written version stands closed and the complainant was ordered to produce evidence by way of affidavits in support of the complaint.

            The complainant adduced evidence by way of duly sworn his own affidavit and affidavit of Aratrika Razdan. The complainant has placed on record copy of retail invoice, copy of job card and copy of tax invoice.

                     We have perused the case file and also heard learned counsel appearing for the complainant.

                        Briefly stated facts of the case are that complainant said to have purchased handset Lenovo Vibe K5 Note(Gold 32 GB) from OP3 on,21-08-2016 for a sale consideration of Rs.13,499/-but within eleven months from its purchase, the  handset was marred by defect, complainant approached OP1,which is the authorized service centre of  Lenovo having its office at Gandhi Nagar,Jammu and  the office of OP11 retained the handset of complainant and issued memo .Complainant further submitted that at the time of handing over of the handset to OP1 the screen of the handset was broken, but the touch was in excellent working condition. Complainant further submitted that the screen of the handset was broken in the month of April 2017 when he put the handset in his jeans pent pocket alongwith office key. Allegation of complainant is that after depositing of the handset with the office of OP1 the attendant boy in the office told him to visit after 10 days for collection of handset till then the handset of complainant will be ready for delivery after rectification of problem as mentioned in the receipt dated 21-07-2017. Complainant further submitted that he again visited the office of OP1 after expiry of 10 days, but the handset of complainant was not ready for delivery  and he was being told to wait for 4/5 days,complainant waited for 4/5 days and again visited the office of OP1 and this time again the attendant boy in the office of OP1 told him that there are some problem in the handset like processor is not properly functional. That the complainant on hearing this apprised attendant boy in the office of OP2 that at the time of handing over the handset it was working properly even with broken screen but there was only mic problem which required to be rectified, complainant requested the attendant boy to hand over his handset immediately but the attendant boy in the office of OP1 after search failed to lay his hands and requested complainant to visit the office of OP1 on the very next day till then he will be ready with the handset. That the complainant alongwith his daughter after two days again visited the office of OP1 at Gandhi Nagar Jammu, but this time also he left the service centre of OP1 empty hands as the handset was not traceable.Further allegation of complainant is that he repeatedly approached OPs for redressal of his grievance,but all in vain

                             

                        The complainant in his own affidavit and affidavit of Aratrika Razdan have supported the averments of the complaint. There is no evidence on record produced by other side to rebut the case of complainant. So from perusal of complaint, documentary and other evidence produced by the complainant, it appears that the complainant has succeeded in proving his case as narrated by him in the complaint. The complaint is fully supported by the affidavit of complainant, and affidavit of Aratrika Razdan so, in the given circumstances of the case, and in view of the evidence on record, there is no reason to disbelieve the averments of complainant in complaint. This is a case of deficiency in service. The Ops despite service of notice, sent by the Forum through registered cover have not taken any action to represent the case before this Forum, either to admit the claim of complainant, or to deny it, so there is no reply filed by the Ops in this complaint and there is also no evidence in rebuttal. The present case of the complainant is covered by Section 11 2(b) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1987, which provides that in a case, where the OPs omits or fails to take any action to represent their case within the time given by Forum, in that situation, the Forum shall settle the consumer dispute on the basis of evidence brought to its notice by the complainant. Sub-clause (ii) of the Section 11, clearly provides that even where the OPs omits or fails to taken any action to represent their case before the Forum, the dispute has still to be decided on the basis of evidence brought to its notice by the complainant.

                  In addition complainant has also supported the averments contained in the complaint by duly sworn his own affidavit and affidavit of Aratrika Razdan which are corroborative of the facts contained in the complaint. From perusal of averments contained in the complaint, affidavit of complainant and documents placed on record, it is manifestly clear that from the very beginning, handset started giving trouble,whereas,despite repeated requests to Ops the handset could not be made workable,therefore,in our opinion once high-end hand set purchased by complainant,obviously,without any rhyme or reason, question of grouse, regarding fault of handset would not have arisen, instead of making use of it. Rather we think Ops should have redressed grievance of complainant, who spent such huge money and banked upon such multinational brand, but it seems that instead of well coming the consumer,Ops have chosen to multiply  suffering, which of course is unwarranted and unexpected from such brand. Therefore, in the light of unrebutted averments contained in the complaint and documents on record, we are of the opinion that complainant successfully made out a case of deficiency in service by Ops.

                      Therefore, in view of aforesaid discussion, the complaint filed by the complainant for redressal of his grievance is allowed and Ops 1&2 are directed to refund the cost of handset to the tune of Rs.13,499/- to the complainant.Complainant is also entitled to compensation of Rs.10,000/-for causing unnecessary harassment and mental agony and litigation charges of Rs.5 000/-,respectively. The Ops 1&2  shall comply the order, within one month, from the date of receipt of this order. Copy of this order be provided to both the parties, as per requirement of the Act. The complaint is accordingly disposed of and file be consigned to records after its due compilation.

Order per President                                                    Khalil Choudhary

                                                                                     (Distt.& Sessions Judge)

                                                                                            President

Announced                                                           District Consumer Forum

    29-05-2018                                                                       Jammu.

Agreed by

                                                              

 Ms.Vijay Angral                                              

 Member    

 

Mr.Ghulam Sarwar Chauhan

Member