Delhi

West Delhi

CC/15/626

AKASH SINGHAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

LENOVO - Opp.Party(s)

22 Oct 2018

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:

Complaint Case. No.626/15                                          Date of order: 22/10/2018

IN  MATTER OF

Akash Singhal R/O B-1, 537-D, Janak Puri, New Delhi-58                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  Complainant

VERSUS

CMD/ Director/CEO, Lenovi India Pvt. Ltd., Ferns icon, Level -2, Doddenakund Village, Marathhalli Outer Ring Road, Marathhali Post, Kr Puram Hobli, Banglore-560037

 

                                                                                                                                        Opposite party-1

Manager/Prop. M/S Touch Service Centre, HCL, G-5(ii) A, Shop No. 5/126-127, Janak Palace, District Center , Janak Puri, New Delhi-58

                                                                                                                                      Opposite party- 2

Prop. M/S Mobile Planet, DDA Shop No-9, Plot No. 7A, Distt. Centre, Janakpuri New Delhi-58

                                                                                                                                     Opposite party- 3

 

ORDER

PUNEET LAMBA, MEMBER

                    The present complaint is filed under section 12 of the CPA by the above named complainant against Ops for deficiency in service. The brief facts as alleged by the complainant are that he purchased one smart phone of make and model Lenovo 8660 from Op-3 for sale consideration of Rs.13,500/- vide invoice dated 28.02.2015 . On assurance of OP-3 about the quality and after sale service the mobile handset was purchased by the complainant which was sold on special price of Rs.13,500/- whereas the MRP of the said model and make is Rs. 14,999/-. It is alleged that the mobile handset developed fault at the inception of the purchase and used to hang, auto shut on and off without any command, even the Bluetooth and Wi-fi are not working. There is also battery backup problem and the touch function are not working properly. The complainant informed about the problems persisting in the mobile handset to OP-3 and after repeated request Op-3 in month of March April 2015 sent the mobile handset for repairs on 18.04.2015 to Janak Puri Centre vide job sheet no. SRIN2701504180003. The handset was returned after up gradation of the software and replacement of mother board. But the problem persisted and the mobile handset was given again to the service centre vide job sheet no. SRIN2701505060002 dated 06.05.2015. Thereafter the complainant was assured that the handset will be repaired and given back by 08.05.2015. But the same was not given to the complainant. It is alleged that on enquiry of the status of the mobile handset in dispute  the executive of the service centre told that  there is some major problem with mother board of the handset. The complainant visited time and again but to no effect. The complainant is deprived of use of mobile handset since 06.05.2015. The complainant after lot of persuasion issued legal notice on 15.07.2015 but neither reply was given nor grievance of the complainant was redressed. Hence the present complaint for directions to the Ops to refund the amount of Rs.13,500/- along with interest and to pay compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- for loss of business, mental agony and harassment and Rs. 25,000/- for litigation expenses.

                    After notice only OP-1 appeared and filed reply to the complaint taking preliminary objections that the averments and contentions alleged by the complainant are false and baseless. There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on part of Ops and the ops duly honoured the warranty claim and repaired the mobile handset free of cost and the complaint is devoid of merits and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

                    On merits Op-1 asserted that the handset was repaired and the grievance was resolved with the complete satisfaction of the complainant. It further asserted that the first service report was lodged after two months of date of purchase. Hence there is no manufacturing defect in the handset and it further stated that the complaint lodged on 06.05.2015 vide job sheet no. SRIN2705050002 regarding battery backup and network issues were resolved by upgrading the software. The OP-1 asserted that the handset is ready for the delivery but the complainant never bother to collect the handset. Hence there is no deficiency in service on part of OP-1. It is further asserted that the interim reply dated 31.07.2015 was given in response to the legal notice of the complainant whereby it was duly informed  to the complainant that technical department will verify the handset and take the  necessary action. It is further asserted that the handset is mechanical equipment and same is subject to wear and tear on account of mishandling and usage and there is no manufacturing defect in the mobile handset. It is further stated that as and when the complainant approached the authorized service centre, services are provided by replacing mother board and software was upgraded free of cost and once again asserted that there is no deficiency in service or negligence on part of op-1 and prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

        The OPs-2 and 3 failed to appear despite notice and therefore they are proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 04.01.2016.

        The complainant filed rejoinder to the reply of OP-1 controverting the stand of OP-1  reiterating  the facts of the complaint.

        When the parties were asked to lead evidence the complainant filed the evidence testifying the facts stated in the complaint. He also relied on copy of invoice dated 28.02.2015, copy of job sheets dated 18.04.2015 and 06.05.2015 and legal notice. The OP-1  filed affidavit of evidence of Mr. Shankar Narayan Prakash senior tech. manager testifying the facts stated in the reply. He also relied on copy of board resolution, copy of service report, copy of terms and conditions  and copy of interim reply dated 31.07.2015.

        We have heard counsel for parties and perused the records carefully and thoroughly.

        During course of arguments the counsel for op-1 asserted that the mother board of the mobile handset has been changed and the mobile handset is ready but the complainant failed to collect the same. When the counsel for OP-1 confronted as to whether there is any notice or information given to the complainant informing about the repaired handset, the counsel for op-1 in all fairness asserted that only orally the complainant was informed of the same.

        The main controversy is as to whether the complainant is entitled for the relief he has claimed. The reply of OP-1 and the affidavit states the handset is  repaired and ready for delivery but there is no document on record to show that the complainant was ever informed about the same. Though the counsel during the course of arguments submitted that orally he was informed. From the perusal of the job sheet it reveals that   on 06.05.2015 the handset was deposited and from the documents it reveals till date handset is not returned to the complainant depriving him of use of mobile handset since 06.05.2015. Admittedly the mother board was changed and the software was upgraded which clearly shows that the mobile handset was having some serious defect though there is no document to support that the handset was having manufacturing defect. Therefore, there is deficiency in services on part of Ops by not repairing the handset within warranty and merely by stating that the handset is repaired and is not collected by the complainant, the ops can not wriggle out of the liability as it is not corroborated with any document. Needless to say that the complainant  has to suffer due to deficient services on part of Ops-1 and 2 and are jointly and severally liable.  We are of considered view that Ops-1 and 2 are liable to pay Rs. 10,000/- the depreciated cost of the mobile handset as the complainant has already used it for one and half years.       

         In the view of above discussion and observations justice would be met out to the complainant by awarding sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards the depreciate cost of the mobile handset and Rs. 4,000/- as compensation on account mental pain, agony and harassment and litigation expenses.

Order pronounced on : 

• 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)                                                                                      (K.S. MOHI)                  

MEMBER                                                                                       PRESIDENT