Haryana

Kurukshetra

210/2017

Lovekesh Mehta - Complainant(s)

Versus

Lenovo India - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

24 May 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

                                                     Complaint Case No.210 of 2017.

                                                     Date of institution: 04.10.2017.

                                                     Date of decision:24.05.2018.

Lovekesh Mehta son of Sh. Sharwan Kumar Mehta, resident of House No.451/9, Laxman Colony, Thanesar, District Kurukshetra.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. Lenovo (India) Pvt. Limited Ferns Icon Level-2, Doddanakundi, Village Marathhalli, Outer Ring Road, Marathhali Post, Bangalore-560037, Karnatka through its Managing Director.
2. Lenovo Collection Centre, DD Complex, Opposite New Bus Stand, Kurukshetra, through its proprietor.
3. Lenovo Care Centre, New Mass Communication, Shop/SCO No.152, Ist Floor, Mugal Canal, Karnal, through its authorized signatory/proprietor.
4. Green Mobiles, No.1/B, Indospace Logistics Park, Puduveyal, Duraianallur Village, Ponneri Ta Thiruvalluvar, Tamilnadu (India), through its authorized signatory.
5. Amazon India Pvt. Limited, Brigade Gateway, 8^th Floor, 26/1, Dr. Raj Kumar Road, Malleshwaram (W), Bangalore-560055, Karnatka through its authorized signatory.

 

….Respondents.

BEFORE     SH. G.C.Garg, President.

                Sh. Kapil Dev Sharma, Member.

       

Present:     Complainant in person.

                Ops No.1 to 4 exparte.   

                Sh. W.C.Juneja, Advocate for the OP.No.5.

               

ORDER

                This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Lovekesh Mehta against Lenovo (India) Pvt. Ltd. and others, the opposite parties.

2.            It is stated in the complaint that the complainant purchased a mobile set make Lenovo Vibe K5 bearing IMEI No.863177039566270 from the Op No.4 through online for a sum of Rs.7499/- vide invoice No.MAA4167791461-186293 dt. 20.01.2017.  It is alleged that from the very beginning, the mobile was defective having problems of network, camera, charging issue, display, volume button as well as power off and on automatically.  It is further alleged that the complainant requested the Ops No.2 & 3 to rectify the problems but the Ops No.2 & 3 did not rectify the same.  It is further alleged that the complainant approached the Ops several times to repair or replace the mobile set but the Ops did not listen the genuine request of complainant.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of Ops and prayed for acceptance of complaint with the direction to Ops to replace the defective mobile set with the new one or to refund the price of mobile set alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. and further to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony as well as Rs.5500/- as litigation charges.   

3.            Upon notice, the OPs No.1 to 4 did not appear and opted to proceed exparte.  Ops No.1, 2 & 4 were proceeded exparte vide order dt. 20.11.2017, whereas Op No.3 was proceeded exparte vide order dt. 30.04.2018.  Op No.5 appeared before this Forum and contested the complaint by filing their reply raising preliminary objections with regard to locus-standi; maintainability; cause of action; that the complainant has admittedly not bought any goods from ASSPL and it has acted as an intermediary only.  Further the amount paid by the complainant is against an invoice raised by the seller of the product i.e. Op No.4 and the Op No.5 has no claim over the said amount.  Accordingly, the complainant does not fall within the definition of “consumer” vis-à-vis the Op No.5; that the complainant has wrongly approached this Forum against the Op No.5 on a misunderstanding that he is a consumer of the Op No.5; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of Op.  On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.             The complainant tendered into evidence affidavit, Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 & Ex.C2 and closed the evidence.

5.             We have heard both the parties and perused the record carefully.

6.             From the cash memo, it is made out that the Unit in question was purchased on 20.01.2017 for the sale consideration of Rs.7499/-. From the perusal of complaint and other documents, it is clear that the unit became defective within the warranty/guarantee period.  The complainant has supported his version by way of filing affidavit, Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 & Ex.C2.  In these circumstances, the complainant is entitled to get it replaced from Op No.1, who is manufacturer of the unit in question.

7.            In view of our above said discussion, the complaint of the complainant is allowed and we direct the OP No.1 to replace the mobile hand set of the complainant with new one of the same model.  The complainant is directed to deposit the old hand set along with bill and accessories with the service center of the company.  The order; be complied within a period of 60 days, failing which, penal action under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 would be initiated against the opposite party No.1.  Copy of this order be communicated to the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to record after due compliance.    

Announced in open court:

Dt.:24.05.2018.  

                                                                        (G.C.Garg)

                                                                        President.

 

(Kapil Dev Sharma)         

                                        Member.