Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/54/2017

Paramjit Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

In Person

29 Nov 2017

ORDER

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

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/54/2017
Date  of  Institution	:	18/01/2017
Date   of   Decision	:	29/11/2017

 

 

 

 

 

Paramjit Singh S/o Hakam Singh, R/o H.No.5297/B, Sector 38 (West), Chandigarh.

……… Complainant

 

Versus

 

(1)  M/s Lenovo India Pvt. Ltd., Ferms Icon Level 2, Doddena Kundi Village Marathahalli Out Ring Road, K.R. Puram Hubli Bangalore, through its Director.

 

(2)  Flipkart.com, W.S. Retail Services Pvt. Limited, No.42/1 & 43, Kacherakanahalli Village, Jadigenahalli Hobli, Hoskote Taluk, Bangluru Karnataka 560067, through its Managing Director.

 

(3)  Authorised Service Centre of Lenovo, SCO No.26, Sector 20, Chandigarh, through its Proprietor/ Partner.

 

……. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:   SMT.SURJEET KAUR             PRESIDING MEMBER

          SH. SURESH KUMAR SARDANA     MEMBER

 

For Complainant	:	Complainant in person.
For OP No.2	:	Sh. Vikram Vir Sharda, Proxy Counsel for Sh. Rohit Kumar, Advocate.
For OP No.1 & 3	:	Ex-parte.

 

PER SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, MEMBER

 

 

          Sh. Paramjit Singh (hereinafter called the Complainant) has filed this consumer complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against M/s Lenovo India Private Limited and others (hereinafter called the Opposite Parties), alleging that he had purchased one Lenovo Vibe K-5 Plus mobile handset for a total sum of Rs.8499/- from Opposite Party No.2 on 31.03.2016 vide invoice Annexure C-1. After two months of its purchase, the said mobile handset started giving problems of motherboard, back camera and charging problem etc. The Complainant approached the Opposite Party No.3, a number of times with the same problem, but every time the mobile handset was returned without removing the problems. Eventually, a legal notice dated 07.11.2016 was served upon the Opposite Parties, but the same failed to yield the desired results. 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 Party seeking its version of the case.

 

3.      Initially, Sh. Manwar Singh, Customer Care Executive has appeared for Opposite Parties No.1 & 3 and filed written statement/ reply on behalf of Opposite Party No.1. It was stated by Sh.Manwar Singh that reply filed on behalf of Opposite Party No.1 may be considered as reply on behalf of Opposite Party No.3 and the case was adjourned for filing their evidence. However, subsequently, neither the evidence was filed nor anybody appeared on behalf of Opposite Parties No.1 & 3 and they were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 30.08.2017.

 

4.      Opposite Party No.2 in its reply, while admitting the factual matrix of the case, has pleaded that Opposite Party No.1 is the manufacturer of the mobile set in question and Opposite Party No.3 is the authorized service center appointed by its manufacturer. The answering Opposite Party being merely a re-seller of the product, cannot remove the defect therein, if any, therefore, no liability can be fastened on the answering Opposite Party. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, Opposite Party No.2 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

5.      The Complainant also filed separate replications 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 and 2 have been controverted.

 

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

 

7.      We have heard the Complainant in person and learned proxy counsel for Opposite Party No.2 and have also perused the record.

 

8.      In the present case, the averments of the complaint have gone unrebutted in the absence of the Opposite Parties No.1 & 3, who were initially appeared, but later on neither chose to appear in person, nor through their Counsel. It is established beyond all reasonable doubt that the complaint of the Complainant is genuine. The Opposite Parties No.1 & 3 have certainly and definitely indulged into unfair trade practice. Also, the Opposite Parties No.1 & 3 did not bother to redress the grievance of the Complainant when contacted by him, resulting into immense, mental and physical harassment to the complainant. Thus, finding a definite deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties No.1 & 3, we have no other alternative, but to allow the present complaint against them.

 

9.      The entire grievance of the Complainant relates to the defects in the product and after sale service issue post the product’s usage by him for nearly about two months. We are of the concerted opinion that the liability for defect in the product or after sales service issues rests with the manufacturer/ service centre only. Since the Opposite Party No.2 is only a reseller of the product, therefore it cannot remove the defect(s), if any, in the product, and thus, to our mind, Opposite Party No.2 cannot be held liable for any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice. The present Complaint is therefore liable to be dismissed qua Opposite Party No.2.

 

10.      In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Parties No.1 & 3 are 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 No.1 & 3, and the same is allowed, qua them. The Opposite Parties No.1 & 3 are, jointly & severally, directed:-

 

[a]  To refund Rs.8,499/- being the cost of the Lenovo Vibe K-5 Plus mobile handset to the Complainant along with int. @6% p.a. from the date of purchase i.e. 31.03.2016, till it is paid;

 

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

 

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

          The complaint against Opposite Party No.2 fails and is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. 

11.      The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties No.1 & 3; thereafter, they shall be liable for an interest @9% per annum on the amount mentioned in sub-para [a] above from the date of purchase, till it is paid. The compensation amount as per sub-para [b] above, shall carry interest @9% per annum from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid, apart from cost of litigation as in sub-para [c].  

 

12.      The Complainant shall return the Mobile handset in question to the Opposite Parties No.1 & 3 after the compliance of the order.

 

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

Announced

29^th Nov., 2017                                                 Sd/-                                                             (SURJEET KAUR)

       PRESIDING MEMBER

                                 

                                                               Sd/-                      

(SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)                                                                                                      MEMBER

“Dutt”