BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.155 of 2016
Date of Instt. 04.04.2016
Date of Decision :08.11.2016
Mansi Malhotra D/o Sh. Naveen Malhotra R/o H.No. 332, New Baldev Nagar, Jalandhar.
..........Complainant
Versus
Logic Computers (Authorized Service Centre Lenovo Mobile) Garha Road, Hardyal Nagar, Jalandhar, Through its Manager.
Lenovo India Pvt. Ltd. Ferns Icon, Level-2, Doddenakund Village, Marathhalli outer Ring Road, Marathhalli Post, Kr Puram Hobli, Bangalore-5600037.
.........Opposite parties
Complaint Under Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Sh. Karnail Singh, (President),
Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)
Present: Sh.Robin Budhiraja Adv., counsel for the complainant.
Sh.Sanjeev Sharma Adv., counsel for OP No.1.
Miss Aabha Naagar Adv., counsel for OP No.2.
Order
Karnail Singh (President)
1. The instant complaint filed by complainant, wherein alleged that the complainant has purchased one mobile handset Model No. K50a40 in 16 GB (Lenovo K3 Note) dated 15/7/15 vide invoice No. OD03379718159650800 from Flipkart.com for Rs. 9,999/-. The complainant has faced problem regarding this handset after four months from date of purchase i.e. hanging and not charging result in switched off while during calling and without calling. That after two months, complainant again faced same problem as above said in her handset and ultimately, brother of the complainant visited service centre again in December but OP No.1 again repaired the handset and did not attend the complainant's brother properly.
2. That again on 6/2/2016, the same problem has arisen in handset and OP No.1 has taken the handset in his custody for necessary repairs with one job sheet issued on same date by OP No.1 with no repair charges because the handset is under warranty period. While taken the custody of handset, OP No.1 has given 7 days time to complainant for necessary repairs but when complainant visited service centre of OP No.1 has prolonged the matter on one pretext or other. When complainant through her brother visited the service centre again on 15/2/2016, then OP No.1 told complainant that the chip system of this handset has damaged totally and there is no chance of repair of this handset. The OP No.1 then demanded 7 days more time to replace the handset with new handset from company i.e. OP No.2 but till today, opposite parties have not able to replace the handset of complainant after number of repeated requests. The complainant has sent one legal notice on 11/3/2016 to OP No.1 regarding this complaint. OP No.1 has replied the same on 14/3/2016 and denies from replace the handset and as such filed the present complaint with the prayer that the opposite parties be directed to replace the handset with new one or refund the price and further directed to make payment of Rs. 20,000/- as compensation/ harassment and Rs. 10,000/- as litigation expenses
3. Notice of the complaint was given to opposite parties and
accordingly opposite party No.1 appeared through counsel and filed written statement and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable against the opposite party as there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant purchased the mobile handset and remaining allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and further submitted that the defect of the mobile phone was rectified by the OP No.1 as per the service record but even no mobile handset is ready for delivery and complainant has not come present to receive the handset and lastly prayed that the complaint of the complainant is without merit and the same may be dismissed.
4. OP No.2 filed its separate written reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint a gross abuse of the process of law and is liable to be dismissed with costs and further submitted that the complainant has approached this Forum with unclean hands by not disclosing and misrepresenting the material facts and the present complaint is false, frivolous, misconceived and vexatious in nature and the same is liable to be dismissed and further submitted that complainant has not disclose the fact that she has failed to collect the mobile from the service centre from 8/2/2016 onwards despite the phone being rectified and being functional condition. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant purchased the mobile set and remaining allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly prayed that the complaint of the complainant is without merit and the same may be dismissed.
5. In order to prove his case, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of the complainant Ex.CA alongwith documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C5 and then closed the evidence.
6. In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, counsel for opposite party No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex. OP1/A and closed the evidence. Similarly the counsel for opposite party No.2 also tendered into evidence affidavit Ex. OP2/A-1 alongwith documents Ex. OP2/1 Resolution, Ex. OP2/A and Ex. OP2/B Service Records, Ex. OP2/C (consisting of Pages 1-6) terms and conditions and then closed the evidence on behalf of opposite party No.2
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also gone through the case file very minutely.
8. After hearing the arguments and from perusal of the file, it has become clear that the factum in regard of purchase of mobile handset model No. K50a40 in 16 GB (Lenovo K3 Note) vide invoice No. OD03379718159650800 dated 15/7/15 is not denied by both the opposite parties. Now, question remains whether there is any material defect in the mobile handset? It is the duty of the complainant to prove this factum on the file and accordingly the complainant himself tendered his affidavit Ex. CA wherein, categorically deposed that mobile handset in question having a major defect and this factum further corroborated from the job sheet brought on the file by the opposite party itself i.e. Ex. OP2/A and Ex. OP2/B wherein categorically mentioned that there is a touch screen problem as well as charging problem. Apart from that the last job sheet brought on the file by the complainant dated 6/2/2016 Mark 'C' Code, wherein the problem is mentioned in regarding to charging/ battery issue. So all of three job sheet itself established that there is a major problem in mobile handset due to that reason, the complainant has come to the service centre of the opposite party again and again but this factum has not been controverted by the OP in any manner by reducing any cogent and convincing evidence. Even as per the version of the Ops, the mobile handset is ready for delivery but the opposite parties never informed the complainant to this fact by writing. So it means that the OP has retained the mobile since 6/2/16 till today, the same is never offered to the complainant to get it return. So, this entire facts itself proves that there is a major defect in the mobile handset. So the complainant has entitled for replacement of the mobile handset and as such, the complaint of the complainant is partly accepted and opposite parties are directed to replace the mobile handset of the same model of the same price to the complainant. Further the opposite parties are directed to pay compensation for harassment to the tune of Rs.2,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.1,000/-. Entire compliance of the order be made within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. If opposite parties fails to comply the order, then complainant is entitled to get interest on the aforesaid amount of Rs.3,000/- @ 9% per annum from the date of filing complaint till realization. Complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
9. 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
08.11.2016 Member President
