Jammu and Kashmir

Jammu

CC/146/2018

MONIKA SHARMA - Complainant(s)

Versus

LENOVO - Opp.Party(s)

RS LALOTRA

27 Aug 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,JAMMU

           (Constituted under J&K Consumer Protection Act,1987).

                                                          .

 Case File  No                 398/DFJ           

 Date of  Institution      10-01-2018

 Date of Decision         27-08-2018

 

Smt.Monika Sharma,

W/O Sh.Rajkumar,

R/O H/No.79,Sector-C,

Sainik Colony,Jammu.

                                                                                                                                Complainant

                  V/S

1.Lenovo (India)Pvt.Ltd.

R/O Fems Icon Level-2,

Doddenakudi  Vill.Maraththhalli Outer Ring Road,

K.R.Puram Hobli,Banglore-580037.

2.Customer Care Executive,

R/O C/O  Fems Icon Level-2,

Doddenakudi  Vill.Maraththhalli Outer Ring Road,

K.R.Puram Hobli,Banglore-580037.

3.Lenovo Service  Centre,

R/O H.No.248-A (Pvt.)Ist Floor,

Gandhi Nagar,Jammu.

4.M/S Bhushan Radios(Authorised Dealer for Lenovo India Pvt.Ltd.)

R/O Opp.Petrol Pump Below Gumat,Jammu.

                                                                                                                                                Opposite parties

 

CORAM

                  Khalil Choudhary             (Distt.& Sessions Judge)   President

                  Mrs.Vijay Angral                                                               Member

                  Mr.Ghulam Sarwar Chauhan                                          Member

 

In the matter of Complaint under section 10 of J&K Consumer

                              Protection Act 1987.

 

Mr.Rajesh Lalotra,Advocate for complainant, present.

Nemo for OPs.

 

 

                                                 ORDER

            Grievance of complainant lies in short compass, in that; complainant is said to have purchased a Lenovo K6 Note bearing IMEI No.861886032449274  for an amount of Rs.15,500/on,09-02-2017 from OP4 ( copy of bill is annexes as  Annexure-A).According to complainant within four months of its purchase, the same was marred by defects like, Bottom three touch button stopped functioning, but its manual handset keys were functional,complainant alongwith her husband approached OP4,the authorized dealer of Lenovo from where the handset in question was purchased and narrated whole story and demanded replacement or refund of price of handset in question, but OP4 flatly refused to replace the handset or refund the price of the handset on the ground that   he is not manufacturer or after sale service provider and if they have any grievance with regard to device in question they can approach Lenovo After Sale Provider,i.e.OP3 .That complainant after running from pillar to post approached OP3,who after thorough examination of said manufacturing defective e handset, the Incharge/Mr.Sachin Singh (CCO)received the handset in question and made him to fill up job card mentioning the defect in the handset and accordingly, complainant filled up the job card mentioning the above mentioned defect and on this the said official of OP 3 advised her and her husband to wait for some time, as same has to be thoroughly examined by their expert and after half an hour,OP3 informed her that they needed some more time for physical verification, as such she was advised to come after week and thus the handset was retained by OP3.Allegation of complainant is that after one week time, she alongwith her husband visited service centre of OP3 again they were shocked when they were apprised that as per their expert service engineer opinion the handset in question is out of warranty as same is physically damaged,i.e.from right corner of panel, hence they have mentioned the same on the job card now, on getting the knowledge her husband objected for not mentioning the same when the handset was handed over for further physical verification at that time, now you are informing ,no satisfactory reply was given by them, in fact OP3 kept on insisting for repair of handset on payment basis and even said that if she is interested in rectifying the handset, then in that case she had to pay an amount  of Rs.7,000/-as repair and replacement charges for the defective part, on this the complainant told that her handset is well within warranty period moreover there is no physical damage to the handset and only in order to extract money, they are making such excuses. That on refusal by the complainant for repair charges, the handset was handed over to her and when she reached at home and tried to get start with second option was got shocked to see her handset that it was now totally out of order/non-functional, immediately she approached OP3 and informed incharge of service centre that after receiving the handset back, now it is totally non-functional, on this OP3 in a very irresponsible manner said that handset was when brought to their centre it was totally non-functional. That due to the manufacturing defect in the handset, complainant could not avail the facilities for which the complainant had purchased the handset. Allegation of complainant is that she repeatedly approached OPs for redressal of her grievance, but OPs paid no heed to his requests and this act of Ops constitutes deficiency in service and un fair trade practice. Hence the present complaint. In the final analysis, complainant prays refund of cost of handset to the tune of Rs.15,500 and in addition also prays for compensation of Rs.1,10,000including litigation charges.

                       Notices were sent to the OPs alongwith copies of complaint through registered covers with acknowledgment due and as per record the notices were received by the Ops, but they did not choose to represent their case in this Forum, either to admit the claim of complainant or to deny the same within stipulated period provided under the Act, so their right to file written version was closed vide order dated 18-07-2018 and the complainant was ordered to produce evidence by way of affidavits in support of the complaint.

                        Complainant adduced evidence by way of duly sworn her own affidavit and affidavit of Raj Kumar. Complainant has placed on record copy of retail invoice, copy of job card, copies of photographs of handset, copy of legal notice and copies of mails.

            We have perused case file and heard L/C for complainant at length.

                    Grievance of complainant lies in short compass, in that; complainant is said to have purchased a Lenovo K6 Note bearing IMEI No.861886032449274  for an amount of Rs.15,500/-on,09-02-2017 from OP4  copy of bill is annexes as  Annexure-A.According to complainant within four months of its purchase, the same was marred by defects like, Bottom three touch button stopped functioning, but its manual handset keys were functional, complainant alongwith her husband approached OP4,the authorized dealer of Lenovo from where the handset in question was purchased and narrated whole story and demanded replacement or refund of price of handset in question, but OP4 flatly refused to replace the handset or refund the price of the handset on the ground that   he is not manufacturer or after sale service provider and if they have any grievance with regard to device in question they can approach Lenovo After Sale Provider,i.e.OP3 .That complainant after running from pillar to post approached OP3,who after thorough examination of said manufacturing defective e handset, the Incharge Mr.Sachin Singh (CCO)received the handset in question and made him to fill up job card mentioning the defect in the handset and accordingly, complainant filled up the job card mentioning the above mentioned defect and on this the said official of OP 3 advised her and her husband to wait for some time, as same has to be thoroughly examined by their expert and after half an hour,OP3 informed her that they needed some more time for physical verification, as such she was advised to come after week and thus the handset was retained by OP3.Allegation of complainant is that after one week time, she alongwith her husband visited service centre of OP3 again they were shocked when they were apprised that as per their expert service engineer opinion the handset in question is out of warranty as same is physically damaged,i.e.from right corner of panel, hence they have mentioned the same on the job card now, on getting the knowledge her husband objected for not mentioning the same when the handset was handed over for further physical verification at that time, now you are informing ,no satisfactory reply was given by them, in fact OP3 kept on insisting for repair of handset on payment basis and even said that if she is interested in rectifying the handset, then in that case she had to pay an amount  of Rs.7,000 as repair and replacement charges for the defective part, on this the complainant told that her handset is well within warranty period moreover there is no physical damage to the handset and only in order to extract money, they are making such excuses. That on refusal by the complainant for repair charges, the handset was handed over to her and when she reached at home and tried to get start with second option was got shocked to see her handset that it was now totally out of ordernon-functional, immediately she approached OP3 and informed incharge of service centre that after receiving the handset back, now it is totally non-functional, on this OP3 in a very irresponsible manner said that handset was when brought to their centre it was totally non-functional. That due to the manufacturing defect in the handset, complainant could not avail the facilities for which the complainant had purchased the handset. Allegation of complainant is that she repeatedly approached OPs for redressal of her grievance, but OPs paid no heed to her requests and this act of Ops constitutes deficiency in service and un fair trade practice.

                        The complainant in her own affidavit and affidavit of Raj Kumar have supported the averments of the complaint. There is no evidence on record produced by other side to rebut the case of complainant. So from perusal of complaint, documentary and other evidence produced by the complainant, it appears that the complainant has succeeded in proving her case as narrated by her in the complaint. The complaint is fully supported by the affidavit of complainant, and affidavit of Raj Kumar,so, in the given circumstances of the case, and in view of the evidence on record, there is no reason to disbelieve the averments of complainant in complaint.

                       This is a case of deficiency in service. The Ops despite service of notice, sent by the Forum through registered cover have not taken any action to represent the case before this Forum, either to admit the claim of complainant, or to deny it, so there is no reply filed by the Ops in this complaint and there is also no evidence in rebuttal. The present case of the complainant is covered by Section 11 2(b) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1987, which provides that in a case, where the OPs omits or fails to take any action to represent their case within the time given by Forum, in that situation, the Forum shall settle the consumer dispute on the basis of evidence brought to its notice by the complainant. Sub-clause (ii) of the Section 11, clearly provides that even where the OPs omits or fails to taken any action to represent their case before the Forum, the dispute has still to be decided on the basis of evidence brought to its notice by the complainant.

                  In addition complainant has also supported the averments contained in the complaint by duly sworn her own affidavit and affidavit of Raj Kumar which are corroborative of the facts contained in the complaint. From perusal of averments contained in the complaint, affidavits of complainant and documents placed on record, it is manifestly clear that from the very beginning, handset started giving trouble,whereas,despite repeated requests to Ops the handset could not be made workable,therefore,in our opinion once high-end hand set purchased by complainant,obviously,without any rhyme or reason, question of grouse, regarding fault of handset would not have arisen, instead of making use of it. Rather we think Ops should have redressed grievance of complainant, who spent such huge money and banked upon such multinational brand, but it seems that instead of well coming the consumer,Ops have chosen to multiply  suffering, which of course is unwarranted and unexpected from such brand. Therefore, in the light of unrebutted averments contained in the complaint and documents on record, we are of the opinion that complainant successfully made out a case of deficiency in service by Ops.

                      Therefore, in view of aforesaid discussion, the complaint filed by the complainant for redressal of her grievance is allowed and Ops are directed to refund the cost of handset to the tune of Rs.15,500/- to the complainant, who shall return the mobile phone, alongwith accessories to Ops. Complainant is also entitled to compensation of Rs.5000/-for causing unnecessary harassment and mental agony and litigation charges of Rs.5000/ respectively. The Ops  shall comply the order, within one month, from the date of receipt of this order. Copy of this order be provided to both the parties, as per requirement of the Act. The complaint is accordingly disposed of and file be consigned to records after its due compilation.

Order per President                                                    Khalil Choudhary

                                                                                     (Distt.& Sessions Judge)

                                                                                            President

Announced                                                           District Consumer Forum

   27-08-2018                                                                       Jammu.

 

Agreed by                                                               

                                                                           

Ms.Vijay Angral                                              

 Member    

 

Mr.Ghulam Sarwar Chauhan

Member