Haryana

Panchkula

CC/93/2019

NEHA. - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S LENOVO INDIA PVT.LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

COMPLAINANT IN PERSON

09 Nov 2021

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES COMMISSION,  PANCHKULA.

                                                          

 

Consumer Complaint No	:	93 of 2019
Date of Institution	:	12.02.2019
Date of Decision	:	09.11.2021

 

Neha aged 26 years, daughter of Shri Hari Sarup, resident of House No.986, Sector-11, Panchkula.                                                                                                                                               ….Complainant

Versus

1. M/s Lenovo India Pvt. Ltd., address-Ferns Icon Level-2, Doddanekundi village, Marathahalli, Outer Ring Road, Marathahalli Post, Kr PuramHobli, Banglore, Karnataka-560037.

 

2. M/s Mobile Hot spot, SCO-44, Sector-11, Panchkula, Haryana.

 

                                                                        ….Opposite Parties

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 35 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019.

 

Before:                Sh. Satpal, President.

Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini, Member.

Dr. Sushma Garg, Member.

 

For the Parties: Complainant in Person

                           OP No.1 already ex-parte vide order dated29.03.2019.

                           None for OP No.2(Evidence of the OP No.2 closed vide order dated 08.03.2021).

ORDER

(Satpal, President)

1.               The brief facts of the present complaint as alleged are that  the complainant had purchased a mobile phone Model-LENOVO K8 NOTE 4 of M/s Lenovo India Pvt. Ltd. from OP No.2 vide invoice No.GST-3384 dated 12.02.2018 for a sum of Rs.13,700/-. Warranty for one year was provided as per warranty card. On dated 12.02.2018, at the time of purchase of the mobile in question, screen was displaying a message to update the software. Complainant brought the message into the knowledge of the OP No.1, and she was assured that message will get disappeared after installation of SIM and getting it connected with internet connection, it will get updated automatically. In the evening of 12.02.2018, after reaching to home, complainant inserted a SIM card and got the phone connected with the internet connection, but instead of getting updated automatically, said phone started switching off and on automatically. On 18.02.2018, complainant approached the OP No.2 and informed about the issue, but instead of solving the problem OP No.2 provided the address of service centre of OP no.1. On 24.02.2018, complainant visited the Service Centre of OP No.1 and informed the defects. Service centre executive took the phone and kept the same with him for some time and while giving it back, Executive told that mobile is updated now and there no further problem would be arisen. After coming back to home, complainant checked the phone, but phone was again giving the same problem of switching off and on, applications started shutting down, buffering and keyboard also started giving problems. On 10.03.2018, complainant again went to Service Centre and informed about the problem. Service Centre Executive took the phone with it and told that phone will be given back to her on 12.03.2018 after rectifying the problems. Till 15.03.2018, service centre neither returned back the phone nor she was provided any information with regard to her phone. On 15.03.2018, complainant made a call to Service Centre and Executive of the Service Centre told her to collect her phone on 16.03.2018. Father of the complainant visited the service centre to receive the phone, but they failed to provide the same. On 02.07.2018, after having been incommoded and tired with the faulty product, complainant approached OP no.2 for rectification of the defect, but he refused to entertain the complainant. By not rectifying the defects of the mobile, OPs have committed deficiency in rendering service to the complainant; hence, the present complaint.

2.               Notice was issued to the OP No.1 through registered post (vide registered post No.EH624719124IN on 23.01.2019 to OP No.1, registered post No.CH036310551Non 20.02.2019 to the OP No.1which was not received back either served or unserved despite the expiry of 30 days from the issuance of notice to OP No.1; hence, it was deemed to be served and thus, due to nonappearance of Op No.1, he was proceeded ex-parte by this Commission vide its order dated29.03.2019.

                  Upon notice to OP No.2, it appeared through counsel and filed written version stating therein that complainant purchased their mobile phone from its shop on 12.02.2018. Complainant not approached after the dated 18.02.2018, its shop and they are only authorized to sale only warranty will be provided by the authorized service centre only. Any repair or software problem, responsibility will be with service centre and it was clearly mentioned in the bill.

3.               The complainant has tendered her affidavit as Annexure C-A along with documents Annexure C-1 to C-5 in evidence and closed the evidence by making a separate statement.

                  On the other hand OP No.2 failed to appear before this Commission for adducing evidence, despite several opportunities and as such evidence of OP No.2 was closed by court order dated 08.03.2021.

4.               We have heard the ld. counsel for the complainant and gone through the entire record available on the file minutely and carefully.

5.               Evidently, a mobile phone, Model LENOVO K8 NOTE 4 was purchased by the complainant from the OP No.2 for a sum of Rs. 13,700/-. Allegedly, after the installation of the SIM Card in the said mobile set and getting the same connected with the internet, the problem of switch on and off arose on its own in the mobile on the same day i.e.12.02.2018, itself. The complainant approached the Service Centre of OP No.1 on 24.02.2018, but the problem in the Mobile set could not be removed. Further, the issue of buffering, keyboard in the mobile in question in addition to automatically switch off and on of its own had also developed. The complainant, again contacted the service centre of OP No.1 on 10.03.2018, who kept the mobile set with it for some time and returned the same to the complainant on 12.03.2018, but the defect could not be rectified. Having got tired with the defective product, the complainant returned the defective set to OP No.2 as alleged in Para No.8 of the complaint as well as in the affidavit Annexure C-A.

6.               The OP No.1 did not appear to contest the claim of the complainant and preferred to be proceeded ex-parte, for which adverse inference is liable to be drawn against him. The non-appearance of the OP No.1despite notice shows that he has nothing to say in hisdefence or against the allegations made by the complainant.Therefore, the assertions made by the complainant go unrebutted and uncontroverted.

7.               On the other hand, the version of the complainant is fully supported and corroborated by her affidavit Annexure C-A, along with documents Annexure C-1 to C-5.

8.               As per job sheet Annexure C-5, the mobile set was in warranty. Hence, it was the bounded duty of the opposite parties, either to rectify the defects in the mobile set or to replace it with new one. The invoice dated 12.02.2018, Annexure C-1, shows that warranty was to be provided by the authorized service centre, but the mobile set, as per assertions made by the complainant in Para No.8 of the complaint as well as Affidavit Annexure C-A, is lying with the OP no.2. The OP no.2 though has denied its liability in the matter, but has submitted no documentary evidence in support of its contention. It is well settled law that mere bald assertions, which are not corroborated and substantiated by any adequate, cogent and credible evidence, do not carry any evidentiary value and thus no reliance can be placed on the assertions and contentions  raised by OP No.2.

9.               As the mobile set is lying with the OP No.2 since 02.07.2018, a duty was cast upon it either to get the mobile set repaired from the authorized service centre of OP No.1 or to replace the same with the new one or to forward the genuine claim of the complainant to OP No.1 itself, but we find no documentary evidence on record showing that any effort was made by it regarding the rectification or replacement of the mobile set in question. Therefore, we find that both the opposite parties have been negligent and deficient while rendering services to the complainant.

11.             As a sequel to the above discussion, we partly allow the present complaint with the following directions to the OPs No.1 & 2:-

1. That the OPs No.1 & 2 shall pay an amount of Rs.13,700/- to the complainant alongwith@9% per annum w.e.f. the date of filing of the complaint till its realization.

                  ii.      To pay a lump sum amount of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony, harassment  and litigation expenses

12.             The OPs shall comply with the directions/order within a period of 45 days from the date of communication of copy of this order to OPs failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to approach this Commission for initiation of proceedings under Section 71/72  of CP Act, against the OPs. A copy of this order shall be forwarded, free of cost, to the parties to the complaint and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

Announced on: 09.11.2021

         Dr.Sushma Garg          Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini          Satpal

                  Member                     Member                         President

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

                                               Satpal

                                             President