Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/293/2016

Rekha D/o Vimal Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mehndiratta Music World - Opp.Party(s)

Vikas Aggarwal

03 Mar 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

 

                                                                                          Complaint No. 293 of 2016.

                                                                                          Date of institution: 26.08.2016      

                                                                                          Date of decision: 03.03.2017

 

 

Rekha daughter of Shri Vimal Kumar, resident of Plot No.12, Gandhi Nagar, Near Sati Khera Mandir, Bye Pass Chandpur, District Yamuna Nagar.

           …Complainant.

                                    Versus

1. Mehandiratta Music World 4-C, Mela Singh Chowk, Model Town, Yamuna Nagar.
2. Lenova Customer Care, near Santpura Gurudwara, Yamuna Nagar.
3. Lenovo India Doddenakund village, Marathhalli Outer Ring Road Marathhalli Post, Kr Puram Hobli, Bangalore-560037.

                                                                                                                   ...Respondents

 

BEFORE:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG…………….. PRESIDENT.

                          SH. S.C.SHARMA………………………….MEMBER.

 

Present:           Shri Vikas Aggarwal, Advocate for complainant.

                         OP No.1 and 2 already ex parte.

                         Shri B.S. Chauhan, Advocate for OP No.3.

ORDER

 

1                      The present complaint has been filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 with the averments that complainant purchased the mobile make Lenovo Model No.K50A40 vide bill No.19233 dated 14.11.2015 in the sum of Rs.13000/-. After some days from the date of purchase the mobile in question started giving problem i.e. hanging, display problem, picture not clear and the voice was also not clear for which the complainant visited the customer care of the respondents (hereinafter referred as OPs) company. They checked the mobile of the complainant and returned the same in the same position. The customer Care of the company returned the complainant twice without issuing job sheet but the entry of mobile in customer care might be in their computer. Again in the month March, 2016, complainant visited the OP No.2 with the problem picture not clear, display problem, hanging problem and battery backup is very less and at this time also the OP No.2 tried to return the complainant as it is. Complainant visited so many times to OP No.2 to replace the mobile in question but all in vain. Hence, this complaint.

2.                     Upon notice, none appeared on behalf of OP No.1 and 2 appeared and they proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 14.09.2016.

3.                     OP No.3 appeared and filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objection such as there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OP and on merit it is answering OP states that when the complainant approached the authorized service center for the handset issue, the service call was logged dated May, 3, 2016 (after 6 months from the date of purchase) vide Wo# AMA/LO/16/00567 for heating, hanging and charging issue for which the software was updated and call was closed and handset was handed over to the complainant on the same day. The answering OP further states on validating with the authorized service center that there was only once call logged in the month of May, for which the issue was resolved and the handset was handed over to the complainant. The answering OP states that their authorized service centre is unable to repair or replace the parts of the respective machine, hence refund will be provided as per the terms of the Lenovo Warranty clause listed below:

“if the service provider determines that it is unable to either repair or replace your product, your sole remedy under this limited warranty is to return the products to your place to purchase or to Lenovo for a refund of your purchase price”.

And lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.                     In support of her case complainant tendered into evidence her affidavit as Annexure CW/A and document such as photocopy of Mobile Bill bearing No.19233 dated 14.11.2016 and closed her evidence.

5.                     On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP No.3 tendered into evidence affidavit of Shri Ronendro Singh, Senior Manager, ASIA Pacific Contact Center and Authorized Representative as Annexure RW3/A and documents such as Attested copy of resolution passed at the meeting of the Board of Directors as Annexure R3/1, photocopy of Lenovo Limited Warranty as Annexure-3/2, Attested photocopy of order Customer Unit Receipt as Annexure-R3/3 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.3.  

6.                     We have heard the counsels of both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on the file very carefully and minutely.

7.                     It is an admitted fact that the complainant had purchased the mobile phone on 14.11.2015 vide invoice No. 19233 for a sum of Rs.13,000/- from OP No.1 manufactured by OP No.3 whose service centre is OP No.2. The only plea of the complainant is that the mobile phone in question is defective from the very beginning and defects could not be rectified by the OPs despite various efforts.

8.                     On the other hand, counsel for the OP No.3 vehemently argued that after using the handset for six (6) months without any problem whatsoever, the complainant visited the authorized service centre on May, 3, 2016 (after 6 months from the date of purchase) vide Wo# AMA/LO/16/00567 for heating, hanging and charging issue for which the software was updated and call was closed and handset was handed over to the complainant on the same day itself once the complainant had satisfied with the condition and working of the handset. Except this, no other complaint has ever been lodged by the complainant. As such, there is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops and prayed for dismissal of complaint.  

9                      After hearing both the parties, we are of the considered view that there is a deficiency in service on the part of OPs No.2 & 3 as the OP No. 3 has admitted in its reply that the complainant approached the authorized service centre for the hand set issue for heating, hanging and charging issue, meaning thereby that mobile phone in question of the complainant remained out of order due to one reason or other and complainant was forced to visit the service centre again and again. Now a days, mobile set has become the necessity of the human beings and without the mobile set, a person feels himself as handicapped. Further, the OP No.3 totally failed to file any evidence or submit any affidavit of the Manager/Mechanic of the Service Centre that mobile set in question was not having any manufacturing defect whereas the version of the complainant is duly supported by her affidavit as well as copy of bill.

10.                   Further the complainant has lodged her complaint with Op No.2 within a short span of time and also filed the present complaint within a period of 7-8 months. Hence, in the circumstances noted above, we are of the considered view that there is a deficiency in service on the part of OPs No.2 & 3 and we have no option except allow the complaint of complainant. No deficiency has been proved against Op No.1, so complaint qua Op No.1 is hereby dismissed.   

11.                   Resultantly, we partly allow the complaint of complainant and direct the OPs No. 2 & 3 to refund an amount of Rs. 10,400/- being 80% of the total cost of the mobile set to the complainant within a period of 30 days after preparation of copy of this order, subject to deposit of old mobile set with OP No.2, failing which complainant shall be entitled to recover the interest at the rate of 7% per annum for the defaulted period. Ops No.2 & 3 are further directed to pay Rs 1000/- as compensation for mental agony as well as litigation expenses to the complainant. Order be complied within 30 days after preparation of copy of this order failing which complainant shall be entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum as per law. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court:03.03.2017.

 

                                                                        (ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                        PRESIDENT

                                                                        DCDRF,YAMUNANAGAR.

 

 

                                                                        (S.C.SHARMA    )

                                                                        MEMBER