BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PRESENT

C.C.No: 74/2018     Filed on 07.03.2018

ORDER DATED: 29.06.2018

Complainant:

(Party in person)

Opposite parties:

This C.C having been heard on 28.05.2018, the Forum on 29.06.2018 delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. LIJU B. NAIR, MEMBER:

Case of the complainant is as follows.  The complainant had purchased a mobile phone, Moto X style (white, 16 GB) from an online web store Flipkart, invoiced on 05.10.2016.  On completing one year and 15 days, display assembly of the mobile handset go damaged and on 30.10.2017, the mobile handset was submitted to Moto authorised service centre  M/s. Ensure Own Desc. Kochi and the mobile hand set was accepted vide their job sheet no.SRKOC0011710300002 dated 30.10.2017.  At the same time complainant communicated with Moto customer care and also with Lenovo Corporate office at Bengaluru (mot mobile under the control of Lenovo) through electronic mail as well as through telephone.  On receiving a call to collect the repaired handset from Moto authorised service centre at Kochi, on 15^th November 2017.   The complainant went to service centre at Kochi for collection, but on physical verification itself, the display was found defective (defect found in display assembly) and so, the same was returned back to them for further repairs.  Again on 07.01.2018 (second time) on receiving a call from the service centre the complainant went to Moto Service Centre at Kochi for collecting the handset.  The second time also on physical verification colour saturation issue and improper pasting of display with the body was identified and so handed over the same to the service centre.  In the mean time the complainant continued his best effort to contact with Moto customer care and its officials at registered office at Bengaluru.  But all his efforts are in vein.  On 07.12.2017 the complainant registered a complaint in NCH, INGRAM against Lenovo India Pvt. Ltd., vide complaint No.532109.  NCH disposed off his case on 02.01.2018 with the remarks that “In spite of best efforts of NCH, the company has not responded to your complaint.  You are requested to send reminder letter to the company in case you do not get any satisfactory reply from company, you may move to consumer forum following the procedure prescribed by them”.  After second visit to Moto authorised service centre at Kochi, Mr. C. Manikantan, All Kerala Operational in charge of Lenovo, shifted the mobile handset to Trivandrum moto authorised service centre for repair and on receiving information from him the complainant went to the service centre for collection on 6^th and again on 9^th February 2018, but both the time, he found a shade in display assembly and back case was found broken.  The same was brought to notice and was confirmed by centre staffs.  Further it was learnt that the mobile handset was now sent to moto lab at Chennai for further investigation and repair.  Even after visiting the moto service centres at different places for more than 4 times and continuous communication with the moto officials the complainant neither received the mobile handset repaired nor a satisfactory reply regarding the issue.  Due to the irresponsible behaviour of moto service centre and negligence of concerned officials of Lenovo India Pvt. Ltd. the complainant was not able to use the mobile properly satisfying the purpose for which it was purchased.   Therefore the complainant was forced to buy a new handset for his use.  Due to very poor quality of service and irresponsible attitude of concerned Lenovo officials, after lapse of approximately 4 months, the mobile handset yet to be repaired by authorised moto service centre.  Therefore the complainant wishes to claim compensation.

Issues

1. Whether the allegations against the opposite parties are proved?
2. If so, reliefs and costs if any?

Issues (i) and (ii)

          Complainant filed affidavit along with documents which were marked as Ext. P1 to P6.  Though opposite parties accepted notice, they failed to appear and we proceeded exparte against them.  This is a complaint wherein a mobile handset which was given for repair within warranty period was not returned till date and no specific explanations were there, for this delay from the side of the opposite party, who failed to appear and contest the case after accepting notice from this Forum.  The callous attitude of the opposite party is very evident from this.  Nothing is there to rebute the allegations against the opposite party.  Documents produced and marked by the complainant are not challenged.  So we are allowing the complaint.  Complainant himself states that the purpose for which he purchased the handset was not served and he was forced to purchase another for that.  So we are not ordering replacement.  Ext. P1 proved the purchase price of the handset as Rs.15,299/-.   So we order refund of that amount, with 9% interest from the date of handing over of the handset to the opposite party’s service centre i.e. from 30.10.2017.  Since the purpose was not served complainant is eligible for compensation which we fix as Rs.5,000/-.

          In the result, complaint is allowed.  Opposite party is ordered to refund Rs.15,299/- with 9% interest from 30.10.2017 within 2 months of receipt of this order, failing which complainant is eligible for 12% interest from the date of default till the date of realisation.  Rs.5,000/- is ordered as compensation which is also to be paid along with this amount.  No order in cost.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 29^th day of June, 2018.

SL

C.C.No. 74/2018

APPENDIX

1. COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS

2. COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS

3. OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS

4. OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS

                                                                           Sd/-

PRESIDENT