BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. P. SUDHIR                                       :  PRESIDENT

SMT. R. SATHI                                         :  MEMBER

SMT. LIJU B. NAIR                                  : MEMBER

C.C. No. 384/2017 Filed on 07.10.2017

ORDER DATED: 28.02.2018

Complainant:

K. Sadasivan, Shanti Niketan, 41/895, SN Puram, Puthen Kottah, Manacaud P.O, Thiruvanantahpuram-9.

                                                (Party in person)

Opposite parties:

1. The authorized signatory, Lenovo India Pvt. Ltd., Ferns Icon, Level-2, Doddenakund Village, Marathhalli, Outer Ring Road, Marathhalli P.O, K.R. Puram, Hobli, Bangalore-560 037.

2. Proprietor, Dreams Mobiles, Kairali Plaza, Karamana P.O, Thiruvananthapuram-695 002.

This C.C having been heard on 06.02.2018, the Forum on 28.02.2018 delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. R. SATHI:  MEMBER

Case of the complainant is that, he purchased a smart phone model No. A6000 manufactured by 1^st opposite party on 11.03.2015 for Rs. 6,999/-.  After 26 months of its use the phone started showing complaints with regard to battery.  Then the complainant approached the 2^nd opposite party authorized service centre of the 1^st opposite party for repair on 17.05.2017.  The 2^nd opposite party instead of replacing the battery, reinstalled the operating system and the complainant lost all his contacts and other important notes stored in the phone.  The 2^nd opposite party without identifying the defect reinstalled the operating system and the complaint was not cured.  The 2^nd opposite party then informed the complainant that it will take 7 days to replace the battery and so the complainant entrusted the phone with 2^nd opposite party.  Even though complainant approached the 2^nd opposite party several times and the officials of 1^st opposite party, the 2^nd opposite party did not return the phone to the complainant.  Now without phone complainant was put to difficulties in the matter of banking purpose.  The complainant is using a hired phone which does not support Jio sim and so he was forced to use another sim having high call rates.  The opposite parties are liable for the sufferings for the complainant and are bound to repair the phone.  There is deficiency of service from the opposite parties.  Therefore the complainant approached this Forum for directing the opposite parties to repair his phone and to hand over the same within a time limit or to pay Rs. 6,999/- being the price of the phone along with compensation of Rs. 25,000/- and cost. 

Opposite parties accepted notice but failed to appear and therefore set exparte.

Complainant filed affidavit in lieu of chief and marked Exts. P1 and P2.

Issues:

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for?

Issues (i) & (ii):- Case of the complainant is that, he purchased a smart phone model No. A6000 manufactured by 1^st opposite party on 11.03.2015 for Rs. 6,999/- as per Ext. P2.  After 26 months of its use the phone started showing complaints with regard to battery.  Then the complainant approached the 2^nd opposite party the authorized service centre of the 1^st opposite party for repair on 17.05.2017 and Ext. P1 is the service order.  The 2^nd opposite party instead of replacing the battery, reinstalled the operating system and the complainant lost all his contacts and other important notes stored in the phone.  The 2^nd opposite party without identifying the defect reinstalled the operating system and the complaint was not cured.  The 2^nd opposite party then informed the complainant that it will take 7 days to replace the battery and so the complainant entrusted the phone with 2^nd opposite party.  Even though complainant approached the 2^nd opposite party several times and the officials of 1^st opposite party, the 2^nd opposite party did not return the phone to the complainant.  Now without phone complainant was put to difficulties in the matter of banking purpose.  The complainant is using a hired phone which does not support Jio sim and so he was forced to use another sim having high call rates.  The opposite parties are liable for the sufferings for the complainant and are bound to repair the phone.  Here the opposite parties failed to appear before this Forum for contesting the case or to produce any contra evidence.  Therefore the case of the complainant stands unchallenged and there is nothing to disbelieve the complainant.  The opposite parties did not try to hand over the repaired phone even after accepting notice from the Forum.  This shows the reluctant and recalcitrant attitude of the opposite parties towards customers.  The complainant stated that since much time has elapsed it is not practical for getting the phone repaired and so he is entitled to get the price of the phone and compensation.  On going through the evidence and statement it is seen that the complainant entrusted the phone with 2^nd opposite party on 17.05.2017 and now almost 10 months have lapsed.  So there is no use in handing over the phone to the complainant.  Therefore we are of the view that opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant with cost of Rs. 1,000/-.

In the result, complaint is allowed by directing the opposite parties to pay compensation of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) to the complainant with cost of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) jointly and severally within one month from the date of receipt of this order failing which the amount of Rs. 10,000/- shall carry interest @ 9% from the date of default till payment.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

 Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 28^th day of February 2018.

     Sd/-

R. SATHI                               : MEMBER

      Sd/-

P. SUDHIR                            : PRESIDENT

      Sd/-

                                                                        LIJU B. NAIR                        : MEMBER

jb

C.C. No. 384/2017

APPENDIX

  I      COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS:

                             NIL

 II      COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS:

P1     - Copy of Lenovo Service Order

P2     - Copy of retail invoice bill dated 11.03.2015

III      OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS:

                             NIL

 IV     OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS:

NIL

                                                                                                      Sd/-

PRESIDENT

jb