Delhi

East Delhi

CC/274/2017

HARESH KR. GUPTA - Complainant(s)

Versus

LENOVO - Opp.Party(s)

04 Oct 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO. 274/17

 

Shri Harish Kumar Gupta

124 Sita Ram Apartment,

102, I.P. Extension, Patparganj,

Delhi- 110092

                                  ….Complainant

Vs.

1. Strength Services Ptv. Ltd.

WA 88, 1^st Floor,

Above ICICI Bank, Shakarpur

Delhi- 110092

 

2. Lenovo India Pvt. Ltd.

Ferns Icon, Level-2, Doddenakund Village,

Marathhalli Outer Ring Road,

Marathhalli  Post, Kr Puram Hobli,

Through

Lenovo India Pvt. Ltd. (Sales & Marketing Office),

Vatlka Business Park,

1^st Floor, Tower A,

Sohna Road, Sector 49,

Gurgaon- 122018, Near Omex Mall

 

                                                                                    …Opponent

 

Date of Institution: 21.07.2017

Judgement Reserved on: 04.10.2019

Judgement Passed on: 15.10.2019

 

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By: Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

JUDGEMENT

          The present compliant has been filed by Shri Harish Kumar Gupta, the complainant against Strength Services Pvt. Ltd., OP-1 and Lenovo India Pvt. Ltd., OP-2 under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1982.

On 29.07.2017 the complainant had purchased one Lenovo Zuk Z1 mobile phone bearing serial no. X000KDUQTS, IMEI No. 170664591-27333. On 14.05.2017, there was problem with the touch pad and charging for which the handset was handed over to OP-1, the service centre on 15.05.2017 vide job sheet number SOI 780341705150002. It has been stated by the complainant the hand set was returned on 18.05.2017 after repairs but this time the handset stopped working for which OP-1 was informed and the handset was handed over to them on 19.05.2017 vide job sheet No. 648. Complaint was also registered with OP-2.

The complainant has further stated there had been inordinate delay in rectifying the defect by OP-1 for which OP-2 was also informed vide e-mail dated 26.05.2017. Thereafter, he was informed by one of the executive of OP-1 regarding non availability of the required parts/ software due to which the handset in question could not be repaired.

Despite several e-mails and calls, handset had not been returned to the complainant. Therefore, the complainant has alleged that OP-1 and OP-2 were deficient in rendering services and prayed for directions to OP-1 and OP-2 to refund the cost of the mobile i.e. Rs. 13,499/- alongwith interest @18% per annum; compensation on account of mental agony and physical constrain of Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 1,000/- as cost of litigation.

Complainant has annexed retail invoice dated 29.07.2016; Lenovo service Order dated 15.05.2017 and 19.05.2017; e-mails dated 26.05.2017, 29.05.2017, 01.06.2017, 28.06.2017, 03.07.2017 have been annexed with the complaint.

Notice of the present complaint was served upon OPs.

OP-1 did not appear despite service, hence, they were proceeded ex-parte.

Written Statement was filed on behalf of OP-2, where they have taken several pleas in their defence, such as the complaint was false and baseless as the authorized service centre of OP-2 had rectified the problem by replacing the touch pad and PCB board as the handset was under the warranty. Since, the parts had been replaced, the complainant was not entitled to refund. The complaint was duly attended and as a goodwill gesture, the complainant had been offered free of cost repairs with 3 months extended warranty. It was further stated that the complainant had approached the service centre after 10 months from the date of purchase and the handset was in the good working condition. Rest of the contents of the complaint have been denied.

They have annexed the board resolution authorizing Mr. Shankar Narayan Prakash, Technical Manager, to represent OP-2 in the present complaint, Service job sheet dated 19.05.2017, customer information slip and warranty terms and conditions with their reply.

Rejoinder to the written statement of OP-2 was filed on behalf of complainant, where he has stated that defective mobile/ handsetwas given to OP-1 on 18.05.2017 had neither been repaired nor returned. He has denied the contents of the written statement and has reiterated those of his complaint.

Evidence by way of affidavit was filed by complainant, where he has deposed on oath the contents of his complaint and has relied on annexure with the complaint.

OP-2 have got examined Mr. Shankar Narayanan Prakash, Technical Manager- Smartphone Contact Center, he has also reiterated the contents of their written statement and has got exbihited copy of the board resolution as Ex.A-1, copy of job sheet No. 648 and customer information slip of date 19.05.2017 has Ex.A-2, copy of limited warranty is Ex.A-3. He has stated that the complainant was duly attended and necessary replacement of the touch pad and mother board was carried out, therefore, no deficiency in service could be alleged against them.

Since, the complainant had stopped appearing and no one appeared for OP-2 to argue, we have perused the material placed on record and written arguments filed on behalf of OP-2, the contention of the complainant is that OP-1 had failed to repair and return his handset, which was deposited by him on 19.05.2017. In support of his contention, he has placed on record, job sheet of the same date. It is seen that the complainant had approached the service centre almost after 10 months from the date of purchase with the problem of touch pad not working and hanging problem during calling, which is evident from job sheet dated 15.05.2017 i.e. Annexure-2. Another job sheet dated 19.05.2017, where again the complainant had approached the service centre with the problem auto restart, heating, hanging and charging problem. The fact that mother board was not available has also been mentioned in e-mails exchanged between the complainant and OP-1. Since, OP-1 did not appear, the allegation made against them have remain un-rebutted.

On the other hand OP-2 has filed job sheet dated 19.05.2017, where they have internal noting that the customer did not come to collect the handset. No letter or e-mail requesting complainant to collect his handset has been filed by OP-2 in support of their defence. The last noting is of date 26.12.2017. Since, the handset was under warranty, the complainant was entitled to get the same repaired as per warranty terms and conditions. However, OP-1 and OP-2 have failed to deliver the repaired handset to the complainant. They were definitely liable of deficiency in service.

Hence, we allow the present complaint and direct OP-1 and OP-2 to refund the cost of handset i.e. Rs. 10,125/- (Rs. 13,499/- (-) 25% Depreciation as complainant used handset for 10 months). Further we award compensation of Rs. 5,000/- on account of harassment and mental agony as OP-1 and OP-2 failed to return the repaired handset.

The order be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. In case of failure Rs. 15,125/- (Rs. 10,125/-+ Rs. 5,000/-) shall carry interest @6% from the date of order till realization.

Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

          File be consigned to Record Room.

 

 

 

(DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                                                      (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)

         Member                                                                                                Member    

 

              (SUKHDEV SINGH)

                                                              President