IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA

Friday, the 31^st   day of July, 2017.

Filed on 05..08..2016

Present

1. Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
2. Sri. Antony Xavier(Member)
3. Smt. Jasmine D (Member)

 IN

CC/No.252/2016

  Between

            Complainant:                                                             Opposite party:-

Sri. Ratheesh1. Lenovo

 S/o Sasidharan                                                         Lenovo India Pvt.Ltd.

 Kattilchira House                                                    Forns Icon, Level-2        

Punnapara.P.O                                                         Doddanakund Village

Alappuzha                                                                Marath Halli Outer Ring Road

                                                                                Marathhalli.P.O, K.R.Puram, Hubli

                                                                                Banglore-560037                        

                                                                                2.   Hashtag

                                                                                          Flat No.3, New No. 9/C

                                                                                    Old No.9/C, Perumal Koil Street

                                                                                    Nerkundrum, Chennai- 600107

                                                                          3.  The Proprietor

                                                                               Alleppey Mobiles

                                                                                Opp. Gugu Juwellers, Mullakkal

                                                                               Alappuzha.

                                                                          4.  The Manager

                                                                               Lenovo Service Centre

                                                                               Mullakal Building

                                                                                                                                                              Kallupalam, Alappuzha-688011                                   

O R D E R

SMT.JASMINE.D. (MEMBER)

           The case of  the complainant is that  the complainant had purchased a mobile phone from the 3^rd opposite party manufacturer by the 1^st opposite party for  an amount of Rs. 10000/- on 10/8/2015.  At the time of the purchase of the said phone 3^rd opposite party induced the complainant to take an insurance for the product and accordingly the complainant took an insurance from the 2^nd opposite party for remitted an amount of Rs.200/-. The  phone became

defective for one week from the date of purchase.  The data transfer option of the phone is not working.  The complainant intimated about defect to the 3rd opposite party and the 3rd opposite party informed the complainant that the mother board of the mobile phone is defective. The complainant entrusted the phone to the 3^rd opposite party for repairing and 3^rd opposite party returned the phone after one month. The phone became again defective within 15 days after repairing the phone.  The complainant again approached 3^rd opposite party and also informed 4th opposite party directly again the phone was repaired and returned to the complainant within one month.  But the defect persisted.  When approached 3^rd opposite party they intimated the complainant that an amount of Rs.11800/- is required to repair the phone.  Complainant then informed that he had taken insurance from the 2^nd opposite party so it can be repair free of cost.  Then 3^rd opposite party refused to repair the phone under the  insurance.  1^st opposite party assured to replace the phone but the same has not been replaced so far.   The complainant sustained much mental agony and hence filed his complaint. 

            2. Notice was served to the opposite parties. 1^st opposite party appeared before his Forum and filed version, but 2 to 4 opposite party did not appear  before the Forum and hence  opposite party 2, 4 were set expartie.

            3. Version of the 1^st opposite party is as follows:-

            There is no deficiency in service on the part of the 1^st opposite party.  The 1^st opposite party was repaired the mobile phone free of cost on 25/9/2015.  Complainant was reported regarding power on –off issues and for which the mother board was replaced and the problems resolved within a week.  On 2/3/2016 the complaint was reported regarding power on-off issues. On examination of the mobile phone at the service centre it was found that there was liquid damage in the mobile phone.  Since the complainant was a consumer induced damage the warranty coverage of the mobile phone was lapsed.  Mobile phone is sold subjected to very stringent quality check in accordance with highest quality standard before is it brought for sale.  This opposite party has provided proper service and replaced the defective part and does not committed any deficiency in service.  However, considering its reputation and standing and as a gesture of goodwill, the Answering opposite party is willing to offer repair the mobile phone and a 2(Two) months warranty extension on the mobile phone to the complainant.  The complainant is no entitled to get any cost or compensation.

4. Complainant was examined as PW1 and documents Ext.A1 to Ext.A4 were marked.

5. Considering allegation of the complainant and contention of the opposite party the Forum has raised the following issues for consideration:-  

1. Whether there is any deficiency in the service of the Opposite Parties?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief and cost?

6. Issues 1 and 2:-

The case of the complaint is that the complainant had purchased a mobile phone from the 3^rd opposite party manufactured the 1^st opposite party on 10/8/15.   The product has one year warranty.    The 3^rd opposite party  induced the complainant to take insurance for the product and   accordingly the complainant has also taken insurance provided by the 2^nd opposite party after remitting an amount of Rs.200/-.   According to the complainant phone became defective on many occasions  within the warranty period even though opposite party repaired it many times the defect persisted  and he could not use the phone and now the phone is with 3^rd opposite party.  The complainant requested the opposite parties to replace the phone but they failed to do so.  Hence this complaint is filed.

7.The complainant filed proof affidavit and the documents were marked as Ext.A1 to Ext.A4.  Ext.A1 is the Retial invoice dtd. 10/8/2015 from this it can be seen that the complainant had purchased a mobile phone manufactured by the  1^st opposite party for an amount of Rs. 10,000/-.  Ext.A2 is the brochure of 2^nd opposite party.  Ext.A3 is the copy of Lenovo Service record dtd 2/3/2016.  Ext.A4 is the Lenovo Service record dtd 12/10/16.  According to the complainant the phone became defective on many occasions within the warranty period.  Admittedly the product is purchased on 10/8/15 and  the same has 1 year warranty.  Ext.A3 and Ext.A4 shows  that the product became defective on 12/10/2015 and on 2/3/2016 ie. within 1 year from the date of purchase.  So the product is under warranty.  Therefore the complainant is entitled to get  it repaired under warranty.  According to the complainant the 3^rd opposite party induced the complainant to take an insurance of the 2^nd opposite party and assured to rectify the defect free of cost or replace the phone in case any defect is occurred to the phone.  The complainant  approached the 3^rd opposite party many times for getting the insurance benefit an assured by him.  But the 3^rd opposite party has not made any earnest effort to redress the grievances of the complainant.  The 3^rd opposite party failed to provide the assured after sale service to the complainant.  Even though notice was served to the opposite parties 2 and 3 they did not turn up.  This shows their irresponsible attitude, Hence the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite party has committed deficiency in service and is liable to  compensate the complaint for the mental agony and inconvenience caused to him.  1^st opposite party in their version admitted that they are ready to repair phone free of cost and also willing to provide an additional 2 months warranty.

.           In the result the complaint is allowed 1^st and 4^th opposite party is directed to repair the product free of cost and  to provide with an additional warranty of 6 months.  Opposite party 2 and 3 are directed to pay an amount of Rs. 3000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and inconvenience caused to the complainant. No order as to cost.  Order shall be complied with in one month from the date of the receipt of this order.

Dictated to the Confidential Asst. transcribed by him corrected by me and pronounced in open Forum on this the 31^st day of July, 2017.

                              Sd/-Smt. Jasmine D (Member)

                                                                                         Sd/- Smt.Elizabeth George (President)

 APPENDIX:

Evidence of  the Complainant:

PW1                -           Ratheesh (Witness)

Ext.A1                        -           Copy of Retail invoice dtd. 10. 8. 2015.

Ext.A2                        -           Brouchre

Ext.A3                        -           Copy of Service record.

Ext.A4                        -           Original Service record.

Evidence of  the opposite party:  Nil

// True Copy //

                                                                                                                        By Order

                                                                                                            Senior Superintendent

To  

               Complainant/Opposite party/SF

Typed by: Br/-

Comprd by:-