Delhi

West Delhi

CC/17/34

TANVI GUPTA - Complainant(s)

Versus

LENOVO INDIA - Opp.Party(s)

10 Aug 2017

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (WEST)

                            GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

  150-151 Community Centre, C-Block, JanakPuri, New Delhi – 110058

 

                                                                                                             Date of institution: 11.01.2017

Complaint Case. No.34/17                                                                 Date of order: 10.08.2017

IN  MATTER OF

Tanvi Gupta R/O Samridhi Apartments, Sec-18B, Dwarka, New Delhi-110075                                                                                                                                                                 Complainant

VERSUS

 

Lenovo India Pvt. Ltd., Vatika Business Park, 1^st floor, Badshahpur Road, Sec-49, Sohna Road, Gurgaon-122001                                                                                            Opposite party-1

Technocare Solution Pvt. Ltd. Upper Ground Floor, F-11, Jannak Palace, District Center, Janakpuri, New Delhi-110058 authorized service center of opposite party no.1                                                                                                                                                      Opposite party- 2

 

ORDER

R.S. BAGRI,PRESIDENT

                    The brief relevant facts necessary for disposal of the present complaint as stated by the complainant are that she purchased one mobile handset online in January 2016 make “lenovo Vibe S1” from Cloudtail India Pvt. Ltd. through Amazon India manufactured by Lenovo India Pvt. Ltd. opposite party no. 1 for sale consideration of Rs.15,999/-. The mobile handset developed fault on 8^thapril 2016 and was deposited vide job sheet no.JNP/LO/16/00256 with Technocare Solution Pvt. Ltd. opposite party no.2 authorised service centre of the opposite party no.1.  The opposite party no.2 told the complainant that the mobile handset will be repaired and returned in three weeks. When the complainant visited the opposite party no.2 after three weeks the mobile was not properly repaired and was again deposited with the opposite party no.2 vide jobsheet no.JNP/LO/16/00886. The complainant again visited the opposite party no.2 on 09.05.2016 to collect the repaired mobile handset. But back of body cover of the mobile handset was not properly fixed. Sim was also not working. The opposite party no.2 again kept the mobile for repairs and assured the complainant to deliver it on 11.05.2016. The complainant on 18.05.2016 received the repaired mobile handset. But there was problem regarding vibrator. The complainant again on 28.05.2016 and 08.10.2016 deposited the mobile handset with the opposite party no.2 vide job sheet no.SOIN0630361610080031 within warranty. The mobile handset developed one or other fault and was deposited for repairs with the opposite party no.2 time and again. But the same was not repaired to the satisfaction of the complainant. The mobile handset is lying with the opposite party no.2 since 05.10.2016. But the mobile handset is neither repaired nor returned to the complainant. Hence the present compliant for directions to the opposite parties to refund cost of the mobile handset with interest @ 2% and pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for physical and mental pain and harassment by the opposite parties.

              Notices of the complaint were sent to the opposite parties.  But despite service none of the opposite parties appeared, therefore, they were  proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 01.03.2017.

        When Ms.Tanvi Gupta complainant was asked to lead ex-parte evidence by way of affidavit, she filed her affidavit  narrating facts of the complaint. She also relied upon invoice no. KA-BLR6-144105041-7380820 with order ID 4032684726-2684353, jobsheet no.SOIN0630361610080031 dated 08.10.2016 and emails.

               From perusal of invoice no.KA-BLR6-144105041-7380820 and jobsheet no.SOIN0630361610080031 dated 08.10.2016 it reveals that the complainant purchased one mobile handset online make “lenovo Vibe S1” with IEMI no.867267023910026 and 867267023910026 manufactured by the opposite party no. 1  for sale consideration of Rs.15.999/-. The mobile handset developed fault and was deposited for repairs with the opposite party no.2 authorised service centre of the opposite party no.1 within warranty. But till date the mobile handset is not repaired and returned by the opposite party no.2.

                We have heard the complainant and have gone through the material available on the record carefully and thoroughly.

            The version of the complainant and ex-parte evidence led by her has remained  unrebutted and unchallenged , therefore,  there is no reason to disbelieve  the  unrebutted  and unchallenged  version  and ex-parte evidence of the complainant.  The complainant  from the unrebutted  and unchallenged version , affidavit, invoice no.KA-BLR6-144105041-7380820 and job sheet no.SOIN0630361610080031 has been able to prove that she  purchased a mobile make “lenovo vibe S1” from Cloudtail India Pvt. Ltd. through Amazon India manufactured by Lenovo India Pvt. Ltd. opposite party no. 1  for sale consideration of Rs.15,999/- on January 2016.  The mobile handset developed fault on 08.04.2016 and was deposited vide job sheet no.JNP/LO/16/00256 with the opposite party no.2 authorised service center of the opposite party no.1 within warranty. Though the job sheet shows that finish/repaired date is 08.10.2016. But the complainant at the time of arguments showed original job sheet and asserted that the mobile handset is returned on depositing the original job sheet to  the opposite parties. Therefore, the complaint is able to show that the mobile handset is with the opposite party no.2 and is neither repaired nor returned. The complainant sent several emails to the opposite party no.1. But they failed to redress grievance of the complainant. Therefore, there  is deficiency  in service on the part of the opposite parties. The opposite parties no. 1 and 2 being manufacturer being authorised service centre are jointly and severally liable to refund cost of the mobile handset and pay compensation on account of mental pain, agony and harassment.

              Resultantly the complaint succeeds and is hereby allowed.  The opposite parties no.1 and 2 are directed to pay Rs. 15,999/- cost of the mobile handset with interest @ 9% per annum from filing of the complaint till actual realization and Rs. 2,500/- as compensation on account of mental and physical pain, agony  and litigation expenses to the complainant.

Order pronounced on : 10.08.2017

• Compliance of the order be made within 30 days after receipt of the order.
• Copy of order be sent to the concerned parties free of cost.
• Thereafter, file be  consigned to record.

 

 

 

(PUNEET LAMBA)                                                              ( R.S.  BAGRI )

                         MEMBER                                                                     PRESIDENT