Haryana

Kurukshetra

199/2017

Rajesh Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Lenovo India - Opp.Party(s)

Sanjeev Kirmach

09 Feb 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

 

                             Complaint No. 199 of 17.

                            Date of instt.  20.9.17.

                            Date of Decision 9.2.18.

 

Rajesh son of Sunder Singh, care of Rajesh Kumar Ram Gopal, Shop No.183-A, New Grain Market, Kurukshetra, District Kurukshetra.

                                                ……….Complainant.                      Vs.

 

1. Lenovo India Private Limited Ferns Icon Level-2, Doddenkund village Marathalli outer ring road, Marathhalli post Kr. Puran Hobli, Banglore, through its Managing Director.
2. Lenovo India Private Limited Vatika Business Park, 1^st Floor, Badshahpur Road, Sector-49, Sohna Road, Gurgaon, through its Managing Director.
3. Gurmeet Singh, Lenovo Service Centre, Opposite New Bus Stand, Kurukshetra.

…………..Opposite Parties.

  Complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.

 

Before          Sh. G.C.Garg, President.

                   Dr. Jawahar Lal Gupta, Member

                   Smt. VirajPahil, Member,

             

Present :     Sanjeev Kirmach, Adv. for complainant.

                  OPs ex-parte.

      

ORDER

             

                 This is complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by Rajesh Kumar complainant against Lenovo India Private Limited and others, the opposite parties.

2.              It is stated in the complaint that the complainant purchased a mobile Phone of Lenovo on dated 273.2017 for a sum of Rs 8,999/- through On-Line. The above said mobile set went out of order just after two months and the complainant visited the service center of the company at Kurukshetra but the Ops demanded a sum of Rs.8000/- for repair. The hand set became defective after short span and as such, the complainant is entitled to get replace the hand set or to refund the cost of hand set from the Ops but the Ops flatly refused to pay any heed. Thus, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of Ops. Hence this complaint with the prayer to direct the Ops to replace the hand set or to refund the cost of hand set and to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment. 

3.            The Ops have failed to come present and as such, they were proceeded ex parte vide order dated 4.12.2017.

4.           Complainant placed on record his own affidavit and photo stat copy of cash memo and photo copy of adhar card.

5.           We have heard the counsel for the complainant and have gone through the record available on the file carefully.

6.           There is no rebuttal to the evidence led by the complainant.  Same is also not assailed by OPs.  In view of the same, we see the complaint moved by complainant as genuine.  The same is accepted and we direct the OP No.2 being the manufacturer of the company to replace the mobile set with new one of the same model.  The complainant is directed to deposit the old hand set along with its accessories and bills to 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 :9.2.2018.          

 

 (G.C.Garg)

                                    President,

                         District Consumer Disputes

                        Redressal Forum, Kurukshetra.

 

 

      

(Dr. Jawahar Lal Gupta)    (VirajPahil)

 Member                            Member