Delhi

South Delhi

CC/332/2017

PUNEET KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

LENOVO MOBILE SERVICE CENTRE - Opp.Party(s)

07 May 2019

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM -II UDYOG SADAN C C 22 23
QUTUB INSTITUTIONNAL AREA BEHIND QUTUB HOTEL NEW DELHI 110016
 
Complaint Case No. CC/332/2017
( Date of Filing : 18 Sep 2017 )
 
1. PUNEET KUMAR
RZ 119 BHARAM PURI, PANKHA ROAD, SAGAR PUR NEW DELHI 110046
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. LENOVO MOBILE SERVICE CENTRE
A-180 FIRST FLOOR, BHISHMA PITAMAH MARG, RED LIGHT, KOTLA MUBARAKPUR, SOUTH EXTNSION-I NEW DELHI 110003
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. SH A S YADAV PRESIDENT
  KIRAN KAUSHAL MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:
None
 
For the Opp. Party:
None
 
Dated : 07 May 2019
Final Order / Judgement

                                                   DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016

 

Case No.332/2017

 

Sh. Puneet Kumar

S/o Sh. Surender Singh

R/o RZ-119, Bharam Puri

Pankha Road, Sagar Pur

New Delhi-110046                                                ….Complainant

Versus

 

Lenovo Mobile Service Center

A-180, First Floor,

Bhishma Pitamah Marg,

Near Defence Colony Market,

Red Light, Kotla Mubarakpur,

South Extension-I,

New Delhi-110003                                              ….Opposite Party

   

 

  

                                                Date of Institution        : 18.09.17         Date of Order      : 07.05.19

Coram:

Sh. A.S. Yadav, President

Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member

 

ORDER

Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member

 

  1. The case of the complainant is that the complainant Punit Kumar purchased a ‘Motorola Z Play’ mobile on 13.04.13 and within just three months it started developing problems.  The complainant visited the authorized service centre of Lenovo Mobile and Motorola Service Centre (OP) on 03.07.17 with the problem that the camera of the phone had stopped working. The service centre promised to deliver his handset on 8th July after repairing it but when the complainant  visited the service centre  he was told that the problem could not be fixed as they had ordered for some parts to be used in his phone but they had not received them as yet. Thereafter the complainant was called on 13th, 14th, 15th & 18th July and was not handed over his phone on one pretext or the other.
    1. Finally the complainant called Moto Care and was asked to visit the service centre again. On visiting the service centre the complainant was told that it will take another 4-5 days as there was some issue regarding the software of his phone and he was called on 22nd July. On 22nd July the service centre did not hand over the phone to him and called him on 28th July.  But finally on 2nd August the complainant was handed over his phone.   After receiving the handset the complainant noticed that though the initial issue pertaining to camera of his phone was resolved but the phone now had developed multiple issues such as flash was not working, volume of the music was automatically shifting to lower volume, fingerprint scanner was sometimes working sometimes not working etc. The complainant aggrieved by the callous and highhanded attitude of the OP, approached this Forum for issuing direction to the OP to pay for his mobile and for direction to OP for compensation as well as litigation cost.
  2. OP was proceeded exparte on 25.01.18 as none appeared on its behalf to contest the case.
  3. Complainant has filed exparte evidence.
  4. We have heard the complainant and have also perused the material placed on record.
  5.  Averments made in the complaint and evidence led by the complainant have remained uncontroverted and unchallenged. Hence, there is no reason to disbelieve the version of the complainant.
  6. On going through the documents placed on record, it is noticed that the complainant purchased a mobile handset on 13.04.17 from Amazon. Job sheet annexed with the complaint marked as Mark ‘A’ for the sake of identification clearly shows that the complainant had visited the authorized service centre approximately 7-8 times but was disappointed on each date as OP would not hand over the repaired phone. Further job sheet clearly mentions the problem description as camera not work but finally after numerous visits to OP when the complainant received the phone the phone had developed multiple problems. Certainly, the complainant went to authorized service centre to get his phone repaired and not to create more problems. Since the phone became non –functional within few months of its purchase, when it was still in warranty; complainant is entitled to replacement of the phone or its value.
  7. In view of the discussion above, we are of the opinion that OP is grossly deficient in service. Therefore, we allow the complaint and direct OP to pay the cost of the mobile phone i.e. Rs.24,999/- to the complainant with interest @  6% per annum from the date of receiving the handset i.e. 03.07.17 till realization within a period of one month from the date of receiving of copy of this order. Failing which OP shall become liable to pay Rs.24,999/- with interest @  9% per annum from the date of receiving the handset i.e. 03.07.17 till realization. Additionally we direct the OP to pay Rs.10,000/- towards compensation and litigation expenses.

 

Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations.Thereafter file be consigned to record room.   

 

 

Announced on 07.05.19.

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. SH A S YADAV]
PRESIDENT
 
[ KIRAN KAUSHAL]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.