Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/419/2016

Ankit Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Lenovo India Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

In person

31 Mar 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

==========

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/419/2016
Date  of  Institution	:	08/06/2016
Date   of   Decision	:	31/03/2017

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ankit Kumar S/o Sh. Sham Lal, R/o Flat No.103-J, Imperial Residency, Peer Muchalla, Zirakpur, District S.A.S. Nagar.

…………. Complainant.

 

Vs

 

 

[1]  M/s Lenovo India Pvt. Limited, Head Office: Ferns Icon, Level 2, Doddenakundi Village, Marathahalli Outer Ring Road, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bangalore-560037 through its Managing Director.

 

[2]  Lenovo Authorized Service Centre, B2X-003 Sant Rameshwari Enterprises, 1^st Floor, SCO 26, Sector 20-D, Chandigarh, through its Manager.

 

[3]  M/s Anmol Watches & Electronics (P) Ltd., SCO 1012-13, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh, through its Prop.

 

……… Opposite Parties

 

 

BEFORE:    SH.S.S. PANESAR                 PRESIDENT

MRS.SURJEET KAUR            MEMBER

                   SH. S.K.SARDANA                 MEMBER

 

For Complainant	:	Complainant in person.
For OP No.1	:	Sh. Pankaj Khullar, Advocate.
For OP Nos.2 & 3	:	Ex-parte.

 

PER SURJEET KAUR, MEMBER

 

 

          Succinctly put, the Complainant purchased one Lenovo A6010 (Black) mobile handset from Opposite Party No.3 on 21.12.2015 vide bill No. MCS-9592 after paying a total consideration of Rs.10,000/-. It has been alleged that after six months of its purchase, the aforesaid mobile handset encountered defect in its display, on account of which it was taken to the Opposite Party No.2, who after checking the problem told that there is some internal fault in the device which would be repaired only if the Complainant pays for the repair and that all the repair expenses would not be covered under the one year warranty. However, the job card prepared by the Opposite Party No.2 states that the touch screen of the device is broken, which was clearly not the case. Thus, the Opposite Party No.2 not only refused to repair under warranty but also stated wrong facts on the job card dated 27.05.2016. With the cup of woes brimming, the Complainant has filed the instant consumer complaint, alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties.

 

2.      Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case. However, nobody appeared on behalf of Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 despite service, therefore, they were proceeded ex-parte.

 

3.      Opposite Party No.1 in its reply, while admitting the factual aspects of the case, has pleaded that on 27.5.2016 the mobile phone was received by the Service Centre and post diagnosis the handset was returned to the Complainant on the same day without repair as the handset was identified as Customer Induced Damage (CID) as damaged/ broken Touch Screen was observed. The Complainant was informed that it was a case of CID and warranty could not be invoked as warranty did not inter alia cover failure or damage resulting from misuse, abuse, accident, modification, unsuitable physical or operating environment, natural disasters, power surges, improper maintenance or use not in accordance with product information materials. The Complainant did not want to avail paid services and as such the handset was returned without repair on the same day. Denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service on its part, Opposite Party No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

4.      The Complainant also filed rejoinder to the written statement filed by the Opposite Party No.1 wherein the averments as contained in the complaint have been reiterated and those as alleged in the written statement by the Opposite Party No.1 has been controverted.

 

5.      Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record in support of their contentions.

 

6.      We have heard the Complainant in person and learned counsel for Opposite Party No.1 and have also perused the record.

 

7.      It is evident from Annexure C-3 the copy of the bill that the complainant purchased one Lenovo (black) handset on 21.12.2015 for a sum of Rs.10,100/- from Opposite Party no.3.  In the present case, the Opposite Party No.1 is the manufacturer and Opposite Party No.2 is the service Centre for the product in question.

 

8.      The sole grouse of the complainant is that as per job sheet Annexure C-4 dated 27.5.2015 the complainant reported Opposite Party No.2 that there was defect in the display but under the heading of fault code in the said job sheet it has been mentioned that touch is broken. As per the case of the complainant the touch of the product in question is not broken rather working well but actually there is problem of display only.

 

9.      The stand taken by Opposite Party No.1 the manufacturer is that as per job sheet the touch was broken therefore, being CID (Customer Induced Damage) the defect reported is not covered under   warranty as per its terms and conditions therefore, the complainant needs to pay for the repair of the handset in question.

 

10.      The OPs No.2&3 did not appear to contest the claim of the complainant and preferred to proceed against exparte.  This act of the OPs No.2&3 draws an adverse inference against them.  The non-appearance of the OPs No.2&3 shows that they have nothing to say in their defence against the allegations made by the complainant. Therefore, the assertions of the complainant go unrebutted & uncontroverted. As such, the same are accepted as correct and the deficiency in service on the part of OPs No.2&3  is proved. 
11.      Perusal of job sheet EX OP-1/4 placed on record by Opposite Party No.1 reveals that it is mentioned in the column of problem description that ‘display is not working’ and in column external physical condition it is mentioned that ‘chrome touch broken’. If we compare both the job sheets Annexure C-4 and Annexure OP-1/4, the OPs have not tendered any reason as to why in the column of problem description display not working is mentioned. The pleading of the OPs that the touch is broken is without any substance and expert opinion. Even during the proceeding of the case the complainant showed the handset in the court itself which apparently was working well for using touch and only display was faulty. The mention of CID i.e. Customer Induced Damage over the job sheet does not prove that actually the handset was damaged by the complainant himself. On seeing, the handset there is nothing like physically damaged condition of the same.  It is difficult for a layman to understand the technicality  of the problem  and as such the assertion of the Opposite Party NO.1 that complainant did not give any noting in the job sheet or information of its protest against the conclusion of Opposite Party  No.2 as CID. Hence, this contention of OP-1 is devoid of merit. We feel that the complainant being layman cannot presumed to be expert to give noting or protest over the job sheet.  Evidently the complainant is student and he did not have any other option  but to buy a new handset as the Opposite Parties did not provide him proper service during the warranty period. We feel that the complainant spent hefty amount to purchase the branded product to facilitate himself and not for getting befooled by the company by not providing the service during the warranty period and then forcing him to indulge into the present litigation unnecessarily.
12.      Pertinently Opposite Party No.2 who concluded that the touch is broken, did not give its appearance during the proceedings of the present case to corroborate the  defence taken by Opposite Party No.1, therefore, the act of OPs for non-appearing during the proceedings of the present case and non- providing proper services to the complainant that too within the warranty period clearly proves deficiency in service on their part. Therefore, Opposite Parties are jointly and severally held liable.
13.      In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Parties are found deficient in giving proper service to the complainant and having indulged in unfair trade practice. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Parties, and the same is allowed, qua them. The Opposite Parties are, jointly and severally, directed:-

 

[a]    To refund Rs.10,100/- to the Complainant being the invoice price of the handset in question;

 

 

[b]    To pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation for mental agony & harassment suffered by the complainant;

 

 

[c]    To pay Rs.3,000/- as costs of litigation.

 

 

14.      The above said order be complied with by the Opposite Parties, within 30 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amount at Sr. No. [a] & [b] above shall carry interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of the present Complaint, till actual payment, besides payment of litigation costs.

 

15.      Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

31^st March, 2017                                       sd/-    

(S.S. PANESAR)

PRESIDENT

 

              sd/-      

(SURJEET KAUR)

MEMBER

 

              sd/-      

(S.K.SARDANA)                                                                                                      MEMBER