Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/294/2016

M.Selvaraj - Complainant(s)

Versus

Managing Director, M/s.Lenova (India) P Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

N.Maheshwaraiah

13 Jun 2022

ORDER

Date of Complaint Filed : 24.08.2016

Date of Reservation      : 17.05.2022

Date of Order               : 13.06.2022

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (SOUTH), CHENNAI-3.

 

PRESENT:    TMT. B. JIJAA, M.L.,                                                 : PRESIDENT

                      THIRU. T.R. SIVAKUMHAR, B.A., B.L.,                  :  MEMBER  I 

                       THIRU. S. NANDAGOPALAN., B.Sc., MBA.,          : MEMBER II

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 294/2016

MONDAY, THE 13^th DAY OF JUNE 2022

M. Selvaraju,

Flat No.1A, 1^st Floor,

Akshaya Enclave,

No.38/41, Gill Nagar, 2^nd Street,

Choolaimedu, Chennai – 600 094.                                                                             ... Complainant                       

 

..Vs..

1.Managing director,

   M/s. Lenova (India) Private Limited,

   Ferns Icon, Level 2,

   Doddemakundi, Marathahalli,

   Outer Ring Road, K.R.Puram Hobli,

   Bangalore – 560 037.

 

2.Proprietor / Managing Partner,

   M/s. AP Technologies,

   Shop No.5, CEEBROS complex,

   Old No.45, New No.39, Montieth Road,

   Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.                                                                                     ...  Opposite Parties

 

******

Counsel for the Complainant               : M/s. N. Maheswaraiah

Counsel for the 1^st Opposite Party       : M/s. Conscientia Law Associaties

Counsel for the 2^nd Opposite Party       :Exparte

       

On perusal of records and after having heard the oral arguments of the Counsel for the Complainant and the Counsel for the 1^st Opposite Party, we delivered the following:

ORDER

Pronounced by the President Tmt. B. Jijaa, M.L.,

1.      The Complainant has filed this complaint as against the Opposite Party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and prays to return the Mobile instruments in its original state after rectifying problem in the handset or replace with another new Mobile in working condition or refund the cost of the mobile of a sum of Rs.11,999/- and to pay a damage of a sum of Rs.50,000/- for the mental agony caused due to the negligence and ill-treatment and also to pay a cost of the new mobile purchased for a sum of Rs.12,000/-.

2.     The averments of Complaint in brief are as follows:-

The Complainant submitted that he is a practicing advocate. He had purchased a mobile phone manufactured and marketed by the 1^st Opposite Party, brand Lenovo Vibe K4 Note Model: A7010A48    through Amazon, an online company, under invoice No.KA-BLR6-144105041-10855183 dated 29.03.2016. Mobile phone was delivered along with Warranty and the said warranty provides for one year for mobile phone, for Handset and for embedded battery. As the display in the mobile completely went down, the Complainant handed over the same to the 2^nd Opposite Party the authorized repair centre of the 1^st Opposite Party under work order No.YXE/LO/16/01035 dated 23.06.2016 at 1.41, p.m. when the Complainant handed over the Mobile Phone to the 2^nd Opposite Party, their technician after due verification found the physical status of the instrument as normal and acknowledged the same in their receipt vide computer printed and signed receipt. But, on the same day by 4.15 pm the executive of the 2^nd Opposite Party called the Complainant over phone and informed that the instrument is damaged, it had a bent due to fall at the Complainant’s end, which require replacement of display board and battery which cost Rs.6000/. He was totally surprised and shocked as he handed over the mobile in normal condition and the same acknowledged by the 2^nd Opposite Party. Hence he informed them not to do anything until he inspects the instrument in person and the next day on 24.06.2016 by 11.00 am he went to the 2^nd Opposite Party, inspected the instrument and shocked to notice that the instrument has a bent at the top and there was damages in the embedded battery also. Hence he refused to take delivery of the same and came back to his work. Thereafter he received a SMS from the 2^nd Opposite Party that device was ready for pickup at CCI AP Technologies and to collect the device. Left with no other option he made a complaint to the 1^st Opposite Party through email on 24.06.2016 narrated the incident and requested them to handover the instrument in its original status as they were responsible for the fault of the authorized service centre being the principal employer. The 1^st Opposite Party sent a reply email dated 25.06.2016 informing that his mail was forwarded to concern team and their field team will get in touch with him. As no one contacted him as aforesaid, he issued a reminder email on 28.06.2016, for which in a casual manner the 2^nd Opposite Party issued reply email on 29.06.2016 stating that they got update from the concerned team that his phone was damaged which will not be covered in warranty, such conclusion of the 1^st Opposite Party was arrived without contacting and without any enquiry with him about the damage. The acts of both of the Opposite Parties clearly establishes that the warranty was only on paper to promote their products in India, in reality Opposite Party’s were not in the habit of entertaining warranty claim of the customer, even in genuine cases. As per the signed customer unit receipt issued by the 2^nd Opposite Party dated 23.06.2016, the physical status of the instrument was “NORMAL”. On their own wrong/negligence the 2^nd Opposite Party’s employees have damaged the instrument and claiming that they have photographs of damages, if at all if their contention of the technicians was true, it is their responsibility to note down the outer damages in the Customer Unit Receipt and get his approval while accepting the instrument for service as universally adopted procedure followed by all the companies. When the instrument was with the 2^nd Opposite Party, they could have taken photos to suit to their convenience behind the back after their negligence act and claiming as if he had damaged the instrument. Both the Opposite Party colluded together and try to shift the burden upon him. As per contract of warranty the 1^st Opposite Party was bound to rectify the display problem and return the mobile phone in its original state since the same was covered under warranty. Even, if the Opposite Parties were not able to rectify the problem, they have to replace the mobile phone with new one as per the warranty. The cost of the mobile phone was Rs.11,999/- at the time of purchase. Even though it is not a big issue, the 1^st Opposite Party should not deceive/cheat him in this deliberate manner by tarnishing his image as if he is a liar, when the Opposite Party’s own record speaks against them. The mental agony undergone by him at this age and experiences was unbearable because of the negligence of both the Opposite Parties. The above said acts constitute deficiency in service as well as amount to Unfair Trade Practice and both of them are liable to be prosecuted under the Consumer Protection Act. Hence the complaint.

3. Written Version filed by the Opposite Party in brief is as follows:-

        The Contention of the 1^st Opposite Party is that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on part of the Opposite Party, they duly honored the warranty claims and diagnosed the defects in the handset of the Complainant. Without prejudice to the above and without admitting that there was any problem with the Mobile Phone, it is pertinent to mention that their aims were always at customer satisfaction as its first priority and values the relationships with its customers. After validating with the Authorized Service Centre that, there is no record or invoice found of the purchase of the said handset. Hence, the Complainant is to put strict proof of the purchase by him and also put strict proof that the said handset was purchased by him for his personal use. Further submitted that after validating with the service centre, the call was logged on 23.06.2016 for Dead Condition, after diagnosing the handset, it was found that there was bent in the mobile phone where the Complainant himself had tried to remove the irremovable battery from the handset and it was clearly visible from an examination of the snap shot of the mobile phone. Since, the handset was a physically damaged and thus same was rejected and retuned on the same day to the Complainant. The said damage was caused by the Complainant himself which is known as a “customer induced Damage” which is not covered under the warranty of the Opposite Party. That the problem of damage occurred due to faulty use / misuse or negligence caused by the Complainant himself and is not in any manner attributable to any defect in manufacture or in any deficiency in service on the part of the Answering Opposite Party. Since, it was a CID issue, the authorized service provider of the Answering Opposite Party had also informed the Complainant that the service would be provided on paid/chargeable basis. Hence there is no deficiency in services by the Answering Opposite Party. Further contended that E-mail sent by the Complainant was replied on 29.06.2016 informing that since the phone was damaged which doesn’t cover in warranty as per the policy. The answering Opposite Party contended that upon purchase of product every customer is provided with a copy of the Lenovo Limited warranty and every customer is provided with due service in accordance with the Lenovo Limited warranty. Further contended that when the Complainant approached the service centre, the Complainant was clearly informed about the CID issue. Hence the service centre is ready to provide the service on chargeable basis as it’s a CID issue and cannot be repaired in warranty basis. The counsel for the answering Opposite Party had sent a reply notice dated 16.07.2016 and after contacting the Complainant through representative, the detailed reply was sent to the Complainant on  08.09.2016 as a gesture of goodwill, the counsel for the answering Opposite Party stated to avail the service on “Free of cost”. But, it’s the Complainant who failed to confirm his acceptance for availing services. Therefore, there is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice from the part of answering Opposite Party. Hence the complaint is to be dismissed.

4.     The Complainant submitted his Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments. On the side of the Complainant, documents Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-8 were marked. The 1^st Opposite Party submitted his Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments. On the side of the 1^st Opposite Party, documents Ex.B1 to Ex.B-5 were marked.

5.     The 2^nd Opposite Party did not appear before this Commission even after sufficient notice given to them. Hence the 2^nd Opposite Party was set ex-parte.

6.     Points for Consideration

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service committed by the Opposite Parties?

2. Whether the Complainant is entitled for reliefs claimed in the Complaint and for any other relief/s?

3. Whether the C.M.P. No.117 of 2017 filed by the Complainant seeking direction against the 2^nd opposite party to produce the subject mobile, ordered to be taken up along with the main Complaint is to be allowed?

7.    Point No.1

The Complainant had purchased the Lenovo Vibe K4 Note mobile, (hereinafter referred to as subject mobile) of the 1^st Opposite Party on 29.03.2016 as found in Ex.A-1. As the subject mobile display went down the Complainant approached the 2^nd Opposite party, being the authorized agent of the 1^st Opposite Party, for carrying out repair as the subject mobile was in within warranty period and handed over the same to the 2^nd Opposite Party on 23.06.2016 at 1.41 pm and the 2^nd Opposite party on receipt of the mobile had issued Customer Unit Receipt dated 23.06.2016 which is Ex.A-2 and in Ex.A2 it is clearly mentioned that Call type as “Warranty”, Category as “Handset Only”, Problem Description as “Upgrade/Inspection request”, Customer Reported Problem as “Dead Condition (without back cover)” and Physical Status as “Normal”.

Further Ex.A-3 is the letter dated 24.06.2016 sent by the Complainant to the 1^st Opposite Party, wherein it is mentioned that the 2^nd Opposite Party received the subject mobile on 23.06.2016 at 1.41pm in Normal condition but on the same day at 4.15pm called and informed over phone the subject Mobile was damaged at his end, hence replacement of display board and battery attracts cost of Rs.6,000/-. Before the issuance of Ex.A-3 on 24.06.2016 at 11 am, the Complainant went to the 2^nd opposite party and inspected the said mobile and found a bent at top and the battery was damaged.

The main dispute arises on when subject mobile was handed over and noted to be in Normal condition by the 2^nd Opposite Party in Ex.A2, how come the subject mobile found to be damaged. By Ex.A-3 the letter dated 24.06.2016 sent by the Complainant to the 1^st Opposite Party the fault committed by the 2^nd Opposite Party has been clearly mentioned that the damage of subject mobile was caused at the end of the 2^nd opposite party and sought for replacement of new mobile.

The 1^st Opposite Party sought for apology and inconvenience caused and assured to resolve the issue on priority basis as per Ex.A-4, but after receipt of reminder Email dated 29.06.2016 sent by the Complainant to the 1^st Opposite Party to retrieve his grievance as the same was under warranty, as found in Ex.A-5,  the 1^st Opposite party sent a reply email dated 29.06.2016 which is Ex.A-6, informing about the update received from their concerned team as the said mobile was damaged and the same would not be covered in warranty, would clearly show and prove that the 1^st Opposite Party had arbitrarily concluded that the damages was caused at the end of the Complainant, is not at all sustainable. And further the contention of the 1^st Opposite Party on the Physical status of the Mobile to be normal but the technician of the Opposite Party informed that they would get in touch after thorough examination of the handset, after issuance of Ex.A-2, the Customer Unit Receipt, is not at all sustainable.  

Further Ex.A-7 is the notice dated 02.07.2016 along with postal receipts, sent to the Opposite Parties by the Complainant, wherein explained the fault committed by the 2^nd Opposite party and sought for the return of his mobile with good working condition or to replace a new one or to refund the cost of his mobile, i.e, Rs.11,999/- apart from claim for mental agony and for the cost of a new phone purchased by him. The 1^st Opposite party in response to Ex.A-7 had sent a reply dated 16.07.2016 wherein it was informed that his complaint was forwarded to technical department for the verification and necessary action and would revert at the earliest.

The 1^st Opposite party had marked Ex.B-2 the Photo of the subject mobile without back cover. It is pertinent to note that in Ex.B-3 marked by 1^st Opposite Party only battery pack warranty alone been mentioned, wherein by Ex.A-1 marked by the Complainant, warranty sent along with the mobile phone clearly states that warranty for embedded battery is for one year. Ex.B-4 were the communications already marked as Ex.A-5 and Ex.A-6 by the Complainant. Ex.B-5 was the reply notice dated 08.09.2016 sent by the Opposite Parties through their Advocate to the Complainant, wherein the 1^st Opposite Party to meet out an amicable solution and as a token of goodwill gesture, proposed to diagnose and to provide the service by replacement of required parts absolutely “Free of Cost” basis to the subject mobile of the Complainant, and requested the complainant to avail the services “Free of Cost” on confirmation within 7 days from the receipt of the said reply, i.e., Ex.B-5.

It is important to note that this Consumer Complaint was filed by the Complainant on 24.08.2016 itself and the subject mobile was very much with the 2^nd Opposite Party and most importantly Ex.B-5 as referred and discussed above has sent on 08.09.2016 knowing fully well the subject mobile was with the 2^nd Opposite Party and further in Ex.B-5 it was clearly mentioned that the 1^st Opposite Party would propose to diagnose and provide service would clearly show that the subject was kept unattended and the admission of the replacement of the required part absolutely Free of Cost would also clearly shows that the subject mobile was under warranty period and the subject mobile could have been repaired absolutely free of cost without any goodwill gesture and the acts of the Opposite Parties would clearly amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite parties, hence this Commission holds that the Opposite parties had committed deficiency of service.

8.     Point No.2 :

As discussed and decided Point No.1 as against the Opposite Parties, the Complainant is entitled for refund of a sum of Rs.11,999/- being the cost of the subject mobile together with the interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of flling of the Complaint, i.e, 24.08.2016 to till the date of this Order and for damages of a sum of Rs.10,000/- for the mental agony caused due to the negligence and ill-treatment and for cost of Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses.

As the Complainant had not produced or filed any valid proof for the purchase of new mobile for a sum of Rs.12,000/-, this Commission is of the considered view that the Complainant is not entitled for the claim of purchase of new mobile and also not entitled for any other relief/s except for the reliefs granted above.

9.     Point No.3 :-

Further the C.M.P. No.117 of 2017 filed by the Complainant seeking direction against the 2^nd Opposite Party to produce the subject mobile and said C.M.P was ordered to be taken up along with the main Complaint.

As the prayer sought in the C.M.P to direct the 2^nd Opposite Party to produce the subject mobile which was lying with them, in which the 1^st Respondent/1^st Opposite Party had made No Objection endorsement on 29.06.2017 and the 2^nd Respondent/2^nd Opposite Party been set ex-parte, this Commission is of the considered view that though the subject mobile ordered to be produced would not serve any purpose to the Complainant, as  order of refund of Rs.11,999/- being the Price of the subject mobile is granted to the complainant, hence the C.M.P is disposed of.

In the result the complaint is allowed in part. The Opposite Parties 1 and 2 are jointly and severally directed to pay a sum of Rs.11,999/- (Rupees Eleven Thousand Nine Hundred and Ninety Nine Only) being the cost of the Lenovo Vibe K4 Note mobile together with the interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filling of the Complaint, i.e, 24.08.2016 to till the date of this Order and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) towards damages for the mental agony caused due to the negligence and ill-treatment and also to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand Only) towards cost of litigation expenses, to the Complainant, within 8 weeks from the date of this order, Failing which the above amounts shall carry interest at 9% per annum from the date of this order to till the date of realization.

In the result the complaint is allowed.                           

Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Commission, on 13^th of June 2022.  

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                 B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                       MEMBER I                        PRESIDENT

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Complainant:-

 

Ex.A1	29.03.2016	Invoice for 1st Opposite Party mobile phone
Ex.A2	23.06.2016	Customer unit receipt of 2nd Opposite Party
Ex.A3	24.06.2016	Letter of Complainant to 1st Opposite Party
Ex.A4	25.06.2016	Reply by the 1st Opposite Party
Ex.A5	29.06.2016	Reminder of the Complainant
Ex.A6	29.06.2016	Reply by the Respondent
Ex.A7	02.07.2016	Notice by the Complainant
Ex.A8	16.07.2016	Reply by 1st Respondent

 

 

List of documents filed on the side of the 1^st Opposite Party:-

 

 

Ex.B1	-	Copy of the Resolution Board
Ex.B2	-	Photographs
Ex.B3	-	Lenovo Limited Warranty Copy
Ex.B4	29.06.2016	Email copy
Ex.B5	08.09.2016	Reply Notice

 

List of documents filed on the side of the 2^nd Opposite Party:-

 

NIL

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                   B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                           MEMBER I                         PRESIDENT