BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Complaint Case no.282 of 2017
Date of Institution: 31.10.2017
Date of Decision: 01.02.2018
Harvinder Singh son of Sh. Didar Singh, resident of village Haboli, Tehsil Rania, District Sirsa.
………Complainant.
Versus
1. Lenovo India Pvt. Ltd., Vatlka Business Park, 1st Floor Badshahpur Road, Sec. 49, Sohna Road, Gurgaon 122001.
2. Service Centre: Sachdeva Sales Corporation – CPT, Behind L.I.C. Building, Old Civil Hospital Complex, Sirsa, Mob. No.93545- 30303.
3. Flip Kart, Head Offce Address: Flipkart Internet Private limited, Vaishnavi Summit No.6/B, 7th Main, 80 Feet Road, 3rd Block, Koramangala, Bangalore, 560034.
……… Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Before: SH. R.L.AHUJA ………………. PRESIDENT
SH. MOHINDER PAUL RATHEE ……MEMBER.
Present: Complainant in person.
Opposite parties No.1 and 2 exparte.
Sh. J.S. Sidhu, Advocate for opposite party no.3.
ORDER
In brief, the case of the complainant is that complainant purchased a Lenovo Vibe K5 Note Phone from Flipkart for a sum of Rs.10,349/- through online on 15.5.2017 and payment was made by him through his credit card and the note was received to him in his village Haboli, Tehsil Rania, District Sirsa. That after about one and half months of its delivery, problem in the mike of the phone occurred upon which he approached to the service centre of Lenovo and got repaired his phone. That again after one month, the mike of the phone became defective and he again got it repaired from service centre. It is further averred that then after one month again the mike of the phone became defective and he got repaired the mobile for third time from Lenove care. It is further averred that complainant got registered his complaint on Lenovo Customer Care on toll free number about repeated problems in his phone and asked them to replace his phone and they asked him to tell job sheet number by visiting service centre upon which they will take action but they did not do anything. It is further averred that his phone has become defective for three times due to which he is facing a lot of harassment and he has to visit time and again to Sirsa due to which his work is also being suffered. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, the opposite party no.3 appeared through counsel on 7.12.2017 but did not file any written statement despite availing opportunities for 21.12.2017, 10.1.2018, 23.1.2018 and 29.1.2018 including two last opportunities and as such the defence of op no.3 was struck of.
3. Opposite parties no.1 and 2 did not appear on notice and were proceeded against exparte.
4. The complainant produced his affidavit Ex.C1, copy of bill Ex.C2, copy of service order Ex.C3 and copy of driving licence Ex.C4. Ld. counsel for op no.3 has suffered a statement that as no written statement and affidavit has been received from the company, so he closed the evidence.
5. We have heard the complainant as well as learned counsel for op no.3 and have perused the case file carefully.
6. The complainant in order to prove his case has furnished his affidavit Ex.C1 wherein he has reiterated all the averments made in his complaint. He has also furnished copy of bill Ex.C2, copy of service order Ex.C3. The pleadings and evidence of the complainant goes as unchallenged and unrebutted as ops no.1 and 2 failed to appear before the Forum and opted to be proceeded against exparte whereas op no.3 did not file any written statement despite availing several opportunities. It is proved fact on record that complainant purchased the Note of op no.1’s company through online service of op no.3 but it is not working properly and it suffers from defect despite repeated repairs. It is the legal obligation of the ops either to make the phone defect free or to provide replacement of the same with new one in case it is found that same is not repairable or to refund the price of the phone in question.
7. In view of the above, we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite parties to carry out necessary repairs in the phone of the complainant and to make it defect free even by replacing parts, if any without any cost within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. In case it is found that phone is not repairable, the ops shall be liable to replace the same with a new one of same make and model. Further in case it is found that phone of the same make and model is not available, then the ops shall be liable to refund the price of the phone in question within further period of 15 days. We also direct the ops to pay a sum of Rs.1000/- as compensation to the complainant. All the ops are jointly and severally liable to comply with this order. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:1.2.2018. Member District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
