Delhi

West Delhi

CC/16/621

UPENDER SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

LENOVO INDIA - Opp.Party(s)

28 Mar 2017

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (WEST)

                                        GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

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

 

                                                                                                      Date of institution: 19.09.2016

Complaint Case. No.621/16                                                        Date of order:28.03.2017

IN  MATTER OF

Upender Singh Gusain, G-87 Jai Vihar, Nangloi Najafgarh Road, Baprola, New Delhi-110043                                                                                                                          Complainant

VERSUS

Lenovo India Pvt. Ltd.,  1^st Floor, Vatika Business Park, Badshahpur Road, Sector 49, Sohna Road, Gurgaon- 122001,                                                            Opposite party no. 1

Technocare Solution Pvt. Ltd., Upper Ground Floor, F-11 Janak Palace, District Center, Delhi-110058                                                                                 Opposite party no. 2

 

ORDER

R.S. BAGRI,PRESIDENT  

Briefly the facts of the complaint as stated by the complainant are that the complainant purchased one mobile handset make “Lenovo ZUK Z1” manufactured by opposite party no. 1 online through Amazon on 20.05.2016 for sale consideration of Rs. 13498/-. The mobile handset within one week developed fault. The complainant on 08.06.2016 deposited the handset with authorized service center Technocare Solution Pvt. Ltd., herein after referred as the opposite party no. 2, of opposite party no. 1. The opposite party no. 2 told the complainant that as soon as the mobile handset will be repaired they would inform the complainant. The complainant after one week inquired about status of his mobile handset from the opposite party no. 2. They told the complainant that the spare parts required for replacement are not delivered from Chennai and it would take one more week to get it repaired. Thereafter the complainant several times inquired about status of his mobile handset. But no satisfactory reply is given by the opposite party no. 2. The complainant several times communicated with Lenovo India Pvt. Ltd. herein after referred as the opposite party no. 1. But they also did not give any satisfactory reply. Hence the present complaint for directions to the opposite parties to pay compensation double of the cost of the mobile handset. 

Notice of the complaint was sent to the opposite parties. But despite service none appeared on their behalf. Therefore, they were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 11.11.2016.

            When the complainant was asked to lead evidence by way of affidavit, he filed affidavit dated 20.02.2017 narrating the facts of the complaint and relied upon copy of invoice no. KA-BLR6-144105041-12918836, copy of job sheet dated 06.08.2016 and copy of emails.  

            From the perusal of the affidavit and the documents relied upon by the complainant it reveals that the complainant purchased one mobile handset “Lenovo ZUK Z1” online through Amazon sold by Cloudtail Pvt. Ltd. manufactured by the opposite party no. 1 for sale consideration of Rs. 13,498/-. The mobile handset was deposited with the opposite party no. 2 for repairs within warranty on 06.08.2016. But till today the mobile handset is neither repaired nor returned.

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

The version of the complainant has remained unrebutted and unchallenged. There is no reason to disbelieve unrebutted and unchallenged version of the complainant. From  unrebutted version and evidence he is able to show that he purchased one mobile handset “Lenovo ZUK Z1” manufactured by the opposite party no. 1 for sale consideration of Rs. 13,498/- online through amazon. The handset developed fault and was given for repairs within warranty to the opposite party no. 2. But the mobile handset is neither repaired nor returned by the opposite party no. 2. The complainant has suffered loss of the mobile. The complainant is deprived of use of the mobile handset. Hence opposite parties no. 1 and 2 are negligent and there is deficiency in service on their part. The opposite parties no. 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to refund Rs. 13,498/- cost of the mobile handset and pay compensation for mental and physical harassment and litigation expenses.

In light of above discussion and observations we direct opposite parties no. 1 and 2 to pay Rs. 13,498/- cost of mobile handset with interest @ 9% per annum from date of filing of the complaint till actual realization and compensation of Rs. 1,000/- for mental and physical harassment and litigation expenses.

Order pronounced on : 28.03.2017

• 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