Haryana

Kurukshetra

14/2017

Virender Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Lenovo - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

06 Feb 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

 

Complaint no.14/17.

Date of instt. 17.1.17. 

                                              Date of Decision: 6.2.18.

 

Virender Singh son of Nachhattar Singh, resident of villae Jakhwala, Tehsil Pehowa, District Kurukshetra.

                                        ……..Complainant.

                        Vs.

1. WS Retail Services Private Limited, Warehouse address SND WAREHOUSE SHED No. C1, door No.4/195, REDHILLS-AMBATTUR ROAD PUZHAL VILLAGE CHENNAL, TAMIL NADU through its Managing Director. 
2. Lenovo Mobile Service Centre, KUMAR SWEET HOUSE, Near Mohan Nagar, Near Agarsen Chowk, Kurukshetra through its Service Manager.
3. WS Retail Services Private Limited, O Zone Manay Tech Park No.56/18B, Block 8^th Floor, Garvebhavipalya Hosur Road, Banglore, Karnatka, through its Managing Director.

 

..………Opposite parties.

 

Complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.                   

 

 

Before               Sh. G.C. Garg, President.    

Dr. Jawahar Lal Gupta, Member

Smt. Viraj Pahil, Member

       

Present:         Sh. Yudhvir Singh, Adv. for complainant.

 Op No.2 ex parte.

 Sh. Rakesh Arora, Adv. for applicant-OPs No.1&3.

           

ORDER

                                                                         

 

                   This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Virender Singh against WS Retail Services Private Limited and others, the opposite parties.

2.            It is stated in the complaint that complainant had purchased a LENOVO mobile bearing IMEI No.868851026742079 from Op No.1 vide invoice No.CHN PUZHAL 0120160100252686 dated 25.1.2016 for a sum of Rs.7,999/-. The above said hand set functioned normally for 15 days and thereafter it started giving problem in display and the complainant visited the service center i.e. OP No.2 and the officials of OP No.2 advised that it will not be repair from there and it will be sent to the company at Banglore. Then the complainant asked for his Job Sheet or any receipt but the service center totally refused to give the job sheet. The complainant visited the office of OP No.2 again and again for replacing the hand set but he flatly refused to replace the same. Thus, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of Ops. Hence, in such like circumstances, the present complaint was moved by the complainant with the prayer to direct the Ops either to replace the hand set with new one or to refund the cost of the hand set, to pay Rs.3,000/- as litigation expenses and Rs.20,000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment.

3.             Ops No.2 & 3 have failed to come present and as such, they were proceeded ex parte vide order dated 22.2.2017.   

4.            OPs No.1 & 3 are the same party and as such, there is no need for service of Op No.1.  

5.            The complainant has produce on file his own affidavit and photo stat copy of cash memo/invoice.

6.             We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the record carefully.

7.            From the cash memo, it is made out that the Unit in question was purchased on 25.1.2016 for the sale consideration of Rs.7,999/-. The complainant in his complaint has alleged that the above said hand set functioned normally for 15 days and thereafter it started giving problem in display and the complainant visited the service center i.e. OP No.2 and the officials of OP No.2 advised that it will not be repair from there and it will be sent to the company at Banglore. It is also alleged that when the complainant asked for his Job Sheet or any receipt but the service center totally refused to give the job sheet and also refused to repair the hand set. In these circumstances, the complainant is entitled to get it replaced from Op No.2, who is authorized service center of the company of the unit in question.

8.            In view of our above said discussion, the complaint of the complainant is allowed and we direct the OP No.2 to replace the hand set of the complainant with new one of the same model.  The complainant is directed deposit the old hand set along with bill and accessories with the service center of the company. The order; be complied within a period of 60 days, failing which penal action under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 would be initiated against the opposite party No.2.  File be consigned to record after due compliance.  Copy of this order be communicated to the parties.  

Announced:

Dated :6.2.2018                          (G.C.Garg)

                                                  President,

                                        District Consumer Disputes

                                   Redressal Forum, Kurukshetra.

 

       

(Dr. Jawahar Lal Gupta)   (Viraj Pahil)

  Member                           Member