Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/93/2017

C.Vadivel s/o.Chinnaiyan - Complainant(s)

Versus

M.s.Lenovo India Private Ltd Rep by its Managing Director - Opp.Party(s)

R.Ganeshkumar

03 Apr 2019

ORDER

                                                           Complaint presented on  :  29.06.2017

                                                                Order pronounced on  :03.04.2019

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

    2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT: TMT.K.LAKSHMIKANTHAM,B.Sc.,B.L.,DTL.,DCL.,DL &AL  : PRESIDENT

TMT.P.V.JEYANTHI B.A., MEMBER

 

WEDNESDAYTHE  3^rd  DAY OF APRIL 2019

 

C.C.NO.93/2017

 

C.Vadivel,

S/o, Chinnayan,

No.30/36, 2^nd Floor,

Thirumalai Apartments,

Anandavelu Street,

Perambur, Chennai – 600 011.                                                           

                                                                                             .....Complainant

 

..Vs..

	M/s.Lenovo India (P)Ltd., Rep.by its Managing Director, No.4, Village Towers, 5th Floor, Kodambakkam  High Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034.
	...Opposite Party

Date of complaint                                  :  27.07.2017

Counsel for Complainant                      :  R.Ganesh Kumar, S.Shrenik Raj,

                                                                    K.Jagadeeswaran, G.Moses

 

Counsel for opposite party                      :  Ex parte ( on 29.08.2017)

 

 

 

 

 

O R D E R

 

BY PRESIDENT TMT.K.LAKSHMIKANTHAM, B.Sc., B.L., DTL.,DCL, DL & AL

          This complaint is filed by the complainant to direct the opposite party to refund  a sum of Rs.20,099/- towards the cost of mobile phone and also a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony, deficiency in service, misrepresentation and unfair trade practice with cost of complaint  u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLANT IN BRIEF:

          The  opposite party is the manufacturer of Lenovo brand mobile phones. The complainant had purchased Lenovo brand mobile phone from the dealer of the  opposite party on 02.03.2016  through online shopping agent. The complainant has paid Rs.19,999 towards cash price and Rs.100/- towards shipping cost. Thus totally costing Rs.20,099/- for Lenovo brand vide X3 mobile phone bearing IMEI No:86788102111 2417. The complainant further submits that subsequent to the purchase the very next day the mobile phone on usage showed signs of defects like network of the device would go dead. Even if all the network symbols/lines are available the phone's network would be dead and would not receive any incoming and would not be able to make outgoing calls. The complainant thought it was network problem but found the telecom network was working fine.

2. The mobile phone showed new problem like failure of finger print touch. The complainant being a lawyer was not able to make and receive calls in his daily walk of professional life. The complainant approached the service centre M/S.A.P.Technologies, Egmore many times. But the phone was not rectified and developed more complications. Therefore the complainant after issuing legal notice to the manufacturer filed this complaint to direct the opposite party to refund the mobile phone cost Rs.20,099/- and also to pay a compensation of Rs.five lakhs towards damages, unfair trade practice and mental agony with the cost of the complaint. 

          3. The Opposite Party though received notice remained ex - parte.

          4. The complainant filed proof affidavit and Ex.A1 to Ex.A9 was marked and he also filed written arguments and oral arguments also heard.

5.POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1.Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party?

          2.Whether the complaint is entitled to any relief? If so to what relief?

6.POINT:1

The complainant purchased on 02.03.2016 a Lenovo brand mobile phone brand Lenovo Brand Vibe X3 Mobile Phone bearing  IMEI No.867881021112417 vide Invoice No. KA – BLR6 – 144105041 – 971798 manufactured by the opposite party.  He purchased the mobile phone for his personal use through online website based  on shopping platform Amazon.in. The mobile phone was shipped from Bangalore through online shopping agent for a payment of Rs.19,999/- and Rs.100/- as shipping charges. The purchase invoice is Ex.A1. Ex.A2 is the letter of representation to all the opposite parties.

7. The complainant contends that from the very next date of its purchase the mobile phone showed the signs of defects like network had gone dead and failure of receiving incoming/making outgoing calls and also new problems in the usage of finger print touch feature. The complainant contacted M/S.A.P.Technologies, Egmore and handed over the phone for service explaining the defects. The service center also found the mobile phone as defective one as there was a problem in mother board. The complainant had given notice to the website based online shopping store, the manufacturer, dealer, and the authorized centre through registered post and there was a reply from the dealer fixing the responsibility on the manufacturer. The Manufacturer replied in Ex.A4 requesting the complainant to provide with some particulars. The correspondence between the parties is Ex.A5 to Ex.A8. Screen shots showing the defects are in Ex.A9. As per the complainant’s report that the mother board was changed and the IMEI Number of the phone was also changed in the service centre. As stated by the complainant, the service centre without getting prior permission from the complainant changed the mother board clearly indicates that the mobile phone supplied to the complainant was a defective one.

8. The complainant  contended that even after changing the  mother board the mobile phone was still found  defective as it showed same defects like cropped up phone settings, failure to receive signal, often hanging, deletion of apps downloaded got deleted automatically etc., The complainant again approached the service centre at HCL services Ltd, Annasalai on 09.01.2017. After fourteen days the phone was returned back to the complainant after updating the software. The software installed at the time of purchase was changed from Android Lollipop 5.1 to Android  Marshmellow  6.0.1 thus 2 GB space of  RAM was utilized out of the 3 G.B RAM which resulted in underperforming of the mobile phone. The opposite party to whom the notice is served has not appeared before this forum to answer the contention of the complaint and to disprove the case of the complainant. Therefore the contention of the complainant is considered as true without any challenge. The above acts caused mental agony to the complainant as his profession was disturbed is accepted as per the complaint.  The complainant expresses the opposite party as the manufacturer and therefore he is entitled to return the purchase amount and also to pay compensation due to deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and it is decided that opposite party is liable to return the amount and pay for compensation for deficiency in service and mental agony. 

9.POINT:2

 As discussed in point No.1, it would be appropriate to direct the opposite party to refund a sum of   Rs.20,099/- towards the cost of the mobile  and also a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation to the complainant  which would meet ends of justice besides a sum of Rs.5,000/- for costs. 

In the result the complaint is partly allowed. The Opposite Party is ordered to pay a sum of Rs.20,099/- (Rupees twenty thousand and ninety nine  only) towards  cost of the mobile to the complainant  and also to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) as  compensation for mental agony besides a sum of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousand only) for costs.

 The above   amount shall be paid to the complainant within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which the above said amount shall carry 9% interest till the date of payment.

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 3^rd day of April 2019.

 

MEMBER – I                                                                PRESIDENT

 

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 02.03.2016                   Purchase Invoice

Ex.A2 dated 08.08.2016                   Letter of representation of the complainant

Ex.A3 dated 29.08.2016                   Reply of Cloudtail India P.Ltd.,

Ex.A4 dated 30.08.2016                   Reply of the opposite party

Ex.A5 dated 31.08.2016                   Reply of Amazon.in

Ex.A6 dated 07.09.2016                   Rejoinder of the opposite party

Ex.A7 dated 01.03.2017                   Representation of the complainant

Ex.A8 dated 01.03.2017                   Reply of the opposite party

Ex.A9 dated NIL                     Screen of the Mobile Phone

 

 

MEMBER – I                                                                PRESIDENT