BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.116 of 2017

Date of Instt. 20.04.2017

Date of Decision: 28.06.2017

Anand Soni aged 38 years S/o Sh. V.P. Soni r/o Qtr No.505-D, RCF, Kapurthala.

..........Complainant Versus

1. Logic Computer Adjoining BOI, Near SGL Hospital, Jaswant Nagar, Garha Road, Jalandhar-144022 through its Prop.

2. Lenovo India Pvt. Ltd., Fernsicon, Level-2, Doddena Kund, Village Marathnalli, Outer ring road, Marathnall Post KR, Puran Hobli, Banglore-560037 through its Managing Director.

3. WS Retail Service Pvt. Ltd, Khasra No.435, Road No.4, Lal Dora Ext., Mahipal Pur, New Delhi-110037 through its Managing Director.

.........Opposite parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: Sh. Karnail Singh (President)

Sh. Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Sh. Brij Mohan, Auth. Representative of complainant.

OP No.1 and 2 exparte.

OP No.3 (deleted vide order dated 16.05.2017.)

Order

Karnail Singh (President)

1. This complaint received by transfer vide order of the Hon'ble State Commission dated 27.03.2017.

2. Brief facts of the complaint are that the present complaint filed by the complainant, wherein alleged that the complainant is permanent residing at Qtr No.505-D, RCF, Kapurthala and employee in RCF, Kapurthala. That the complainant purchased a mobile phone Lenovo VP 50200 IMEI No.869441020203754 & 869441020203762 from OP No.3 through order placed on Flipkart, online internet site, for a sum of Rs.7,999/- and in this respect, the OP No.3 issued invoice No.del20160100234960 dated 30.01.2016, in the name of the complainant. That the warranty for the said mobile phone is for one year. After the purchase of the said mobile phone on 09.08.2016, the said mobile phone was having power on/off issue and was giving problem in power on the said mobile phone. On the same day, the complainant approached the OP No.1, which is authorized service center of Lenovo Mobile Phones and reported the matter to them and OP No.1 received the said mobile phone from the complainant and issued job sheet No.SOIN0230701608090002 dated 09.08.2016 and checked the mobile phone and found the defect of “not powering on” due to internal physical abuse and asked the complainant that the motherboard of the said mobile phone has been shorted due to internal problem in the said phone and asked the complainant that if he wants to get the mother board of the said mobile phone replaced/changed, then he will have to pay Rs.5000/- and only after paying Rs.5000/-, the mobile phone will be repaired. The complainant requested that the said mobile phone is in warranty period and it is not his fault if the mother board has been shorted due to some internal problem of the mobile phone, which is manufactured by OP No.2.

3. That the complainant received back the said phone on the same day i.e. on 09.08.2016 because the OP No.1 demanded Rs.5000/- as charges for the replacement of motherboard of the said mobile phone. The said mobile phone is under warranty period and OP No.1 is duty bound under fair trade practice to repair the said mobile phone without charging any amount from the complainant, but he is not repairing the said mobile phone without any payment or charges. The complainant approached the respondent/OP No.1 well within time of warranty. The OPs have adopted unfair trade practice upon the complainant and the complainant has paid a huge amount of Rs.7,999/- for the purchase of the said mobile phone but to no effect and as such the present complaint filed with the prayer that the OP may be directed to refund the price of the mobile i.e. Rs.7,999/- or replace the said mobile phone with a new mobile phone of same model with warranty or repair it without charging any amount and further direct to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- on account of mental agony, harassment and tension to the complainant and litigation expenses of Rs.5,000/-

4. Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite parties but despite service OP No.1 and 2 did not come present and ultimately OP No.1 and 2 were proceeded against exparte.

5. OP No.3 appeared through his counsel and filed written reply and contested the complaint by taking numerous preliminary objections and also filed a reply on merits, whereby denied the allegations and lastly prayed that the complaint of the complainant qua OP No.3 is not maintainable and the same may be dismissed.

6. During the pendency of the complaint, the complainant filed an application and also suffered a statement that he does not want to proceed against OP No.3 and complaint of the complainant against OP No.3 may be deleted and accordingly the name of the OP No.3 is deleted from the array of OPs.

7. In order to prove his exparte claim, complainant himself tendered into evidence his duly sworn affidavit Ex.C1 alongwith some documents Ex. C-2 i.e. Photocopy of invoice/bill dated 30.01.2016, Ex.C3 i.e. copy of service order dated 09.08.2016 and Ex.C4 i.e. copy of the warranty of the mobile handset and closed the evidence.

8. We have heard the representative of the complainant and also gone through the written argument submitted by the complainant.

9. In his written argument, the complainant submitted that the complainant purchased a mobile Lenovo VP 50200 IMEI No.869441020203754 & 869441020203762 from OP No.3 through order placed on Flipkart, online internet site, for a sum of Rs.7,999/- and in this respect the OP No.3 issued invoice No.del 20160100234960 dated 30.01.2016 Ex.C2 in the name of the complainant. The warranty for the said mobile phone was for one year as mentioned in the warranty letter Ex.C4. After the purchase of the said mobile phone, it started giving trouble and on 09.08.2016, the said mobile phone was having power on/off defect and was also giving problem in power on/of the said mobile phone. On the same day, the complainant approached the OP No.1, which is authorized service centre of Lenovo Mobile Phones and reported the matter to them and OP No.1 received the said mobile phone from the complainant and issued a job sheet Ex.C3 dated 09.08.2016 and checked the mobile phone and found the defect of “Not Powering On” due to internal physical abuse and asked the complainant that the mother board of the said mobile phone had been short due to internal problem and it can be replaced only if the complainant will pay Rs.5000/-, where upon the complainant requested that the mobile phone was under warranty and it was not his fault at all if the mother board has been short due to some internal problem of the mobile phone, which is manufactured by the OP No.2 but the service centre is not ready to repair the mobile phone free of cost and ultimately the complainant received back the said phone on the same day i.e. 09.08.2016. The mobile phone was under warranty period and as such OP No.1 was duty bound under fair trade practice to repair the said defective mobile phone, free of cost but he has flatly refused to repair the said mobile phone without getting a payment of Rs.5000/-. So, it is clear cut unfair trade practice on the part of the OP and accordingly the complainant was forced to file the present complaint but during the pendency of the transfer application before the Hon'ble State Commission, a representative of the OP No.1 and 2 visited the residence of the complainant in the absence of complainant on 22.02.2017 as the complainant was away from RCF, Kapurthala on that very day. The representative told the wife of the complainant that the representative had been deputed by the company to replace the defective mobile set with new one. On hearing this, the wife of the complainant tried to contact the complainant on mobile but could not be contacted, due to network problem. The wife of the complainant, being a housewife, got convinced by the representative and received delivery of the new mobile handset and the old one was handed over to the representative of the OP No.1 and 2, by the wife of the complainant. OP No.1 and 2 committed the above said cleverish and illegal act as well as unfair trade practice also. The complainant affirmed that no complaint has been ever withdrawn as no paper has been signed by the complainant. Moreover, any document signed either by wife or by any family member of the complainant in connection with complaint/case cannot be deemed to have been signed by the complainant. Although defective mobile handset has been replaced with new one after a legal fight of about one year but the complainant was illegally forced by the OPs to file this complaint. Reliance of judgment can be placed cited in 2000(2) C.L.T page 489, Hon'ble Supreme Court and further prayed in the written argument that there is deficiency in service, negligence, illegal, arbitrary and unfair trade practice have been committed by the OP No.1 and 2 and therefore the OP No.1 and 2 to be burdened with the exemplary cost of the case/litigation expenses and suitable compensation on account of mental agony, pain, injury, suffering and harassment meted out at the hands of the OP No.1 and 2 be also awarded in favour of the complainant.

10. Alongwith the written argument, the complainant also placed on the file a copy of letter dated 17.12.2016, whereby a new mobile handset was handed over to the complainant and old one was taken back and in this application, it is categorically mentioned that the complainant is fully satisfied with the solution given to him by the company and also stated that he has no grievance or complaint vis-a-vis the OPs in the above mentioned complaint and further stated that he withdraws the complaint, filed against all the OPs being the complainant is fully satisfied.

11. After considering the written argument as well as letter dated 17.12.2016, we find that the complainant himself or through his wife has already settled the matter by replacing a new mobile set with the OP No.1 and 2 and when complainant himself or through his wife has already accepted the new mobile set of same company, same model and old one was returned to the company, then the matter in dispute is considered to be settled by the complainant out side the Forum and when matter is once settled then the complainant has no right to re-agitate for any further claim even for compensation. So, under these circumstances, we find that the complainant is not entitled for any further relief and therefore, the complaint of the complainant is dismissed with no order of cost. Parties will bear their own cost. Complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

11. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Karnail Singh

28.06.2017 Member President