BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.318 of 2015

Date of Instt. 27.7.2015

Date of Decision :20.05.2016

Sandeep Kumar Thapar aged about 43 years, R/o 360, Mota Singh Nagar, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1.M/s Mobile House, H.O:- Chadha Mobile House Pvt Ltd., Phagwara Gate, Near Bhagat Singh Chowk, Jalandhar.

2.M/s Lenovo India Pvt Ltd., Ferns Icon, Level-2, Doddenakund Village, Marathhalli Outer Ring Road, Marathhalli Post, Kr.Puram Hobli, Bangalore-560037.

.........Opposite parties

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Bhupinder Singh (President)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Sh.Rajesh Arora Adv., counsel for the complainant.

Miss.Abba Naggar Adv., counsel for OP No.2.

OP No.1 exparte.

Order

Bhupinder Singh (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against the opposite parties on the averments that complainant purchased Lenovo A 536 mobile from OP No.1 on 26.9.2014 for a sum of Rs.8400/-. Complainant submitted that the said mobile set stop working and it was sent to Lenovo Service Centre vide invoice dated 17.4.2015 with touch problem. The said service centre repaired and returned the mobile set to the complainant. Complainant submitted that the status of the product remained the same and complainant again approached the Lenovo Service Centre and they informed the complainant that there is moisture in the handset, as such mobile is not covered under the warranty as it falls under clause 'customer induced damage” and the service centre told the complainant that the mobile set is repairable on chargeable basis. On such averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the Ops to refund the amount of the mobile set. He has also claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

2. Upon notice, OP No.2 appeared and filed written reply pleading that complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands rather with misrepresented facts. The complainant has not disclosed that user of phone Amita Thapar was duly informed that the alleged defect in the mobile set of the complainant was due to negligent use of the mobile by the user as it was water logged having moisture. So being the case of “customer induced damage”, it was not possible for the Ops to repair the mobile set in question under warranty. The complainant was well informed by engineers of the service centre of OP No.2 that mobile phone will be serviced/repaired on chargeable/payable basis by replacing the parts, touch pad, display penal and PCB of the mobile phone. The warranty does not cover the damage resulting from misuse and improper maintenance of the product. OP produced on record conditions of warranty in which clause No.7 described the condition where warranty does not apply and the present case of the complainant falls under “customer induced damage” as the mobile became dead due to water logging as there was moisture in the mobile set of the complainant. OP denied other material averments of the complainant.

3. Notice of this complaint was given to the OP No.1 but nobody has turned-up despite service and as such it was proceeded against exparte.

4. In support of her complaint, learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavits Ex.CA and Ex.CA1 alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C15 and closed evidence.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP No.2 has tendered affidavit Ex.OP2/A alongwith copies of documents Ex.OP2/1 to Ex.OP2/4 and closed evidence.

6. We have heard the Ld. counsel for the parties, minutely gone through the record and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of Ld. counsels for the parties.

7. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by both the parties, it is clear that complainant purchased Lenovo A 536 mobile from OP No.1 on 26.9.2014 vide invoice Ex.C1 for a sum of Rs.8400/-. Complainant submitted that the said mobile set stop working and it was sent to Lenovo Service Centre vide invoice dated 17.4.2015 Ex.C2 with touch problem. The said service centre repaired and returned the mobile set to the complainant. Complainant submitted that the status of the product remained the same and complainant again approached the Lenovo Service Centre and they informed the complainant that there is moisture in the handset, as such mobile is not covered under the warranty as it falls under clause 'customer induced damage” and the service centre told the complainant that the mobile set is repairable on chargeable basis. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OPs qua the complainant.

8. Whereas the case of the OP No.2 is that complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands rather with misrepresented facts. The complainant has not disclosed that user of phone Amita Thapar was duly informed that the alleged defect in the mobile set of the complainant was due to negligent use of the mobile by the user as it was water logged having moisture. So being the case of “customer induced damage”, it was not possible for the Ops to repair the mobile set in question under warranty. The complainant was well informed by engineers of the service centre of OP No.2 that mobile phone will be serviced/repaired on chargeable/payable basis by replacing the parts, touch pad, display penal and PCB of the mobile phone. The warranty does not cover the damage resulting from misuse and improper maintenance of the product. The OP also sent reply to the legal notice sent by the complainant Ex.C4 and Ex.C5 in which the complainant was duly informed that the mobile set of the complainant has moisture resulting into “customer induced damage”, as such is not covered under said warranty and as such it is repairable on chargeable basis. In this regard emails were also sent to the complainant Ex.C6 to Ex.C15. The OP has also produced on record the photographs of the internal parts of the mobile set, copies of which are Ex.OP2/3 (1 to 6) i.e. six photographs. OP has also produced on record the conditions of warranty Ex.OP2/4 in which clause No.7 described the condition where warranty does not apply and the present case of the complainant falls under “customer induced damage” as the mobile became dead due to water logging as there was moisture in the mobile set of the complainant. Learned counsel for the OP No.2 submitted that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.2 qua the complainant.

9. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that complainant purchased Lenovo A 536 mobile from OP No.1 on 26.9.2014 vide invoice Ex.C1 for Rs.8400/-. The said mobile set became defective on 17.4.2015 and the complainant produced the same before Lenovo Service Centre vide job sheer dated 17.4.2015 Ex.C2 with touch problem. Said service centre returned the mobile set to the user of phone Amita Thapar on the ground that it was water logged because it was containing moisture. The OP has produced on record the photographs of the mobile set of the complainant Ex.OP2/3 (1 to 6) i.e. six photographs which fully proves that the mobile set of the complainant was containing moisture inside in it. As such, OP has succeeded in proving that the mobile set of the complainant was water logged having moisture. As such, it covers under head “consumer induced damage” which means that the mobile set of the complainant became defective due to negligent use of the mobile set by the user. As per terms and conditions of the warranty Ex.OP2/4 clause No.7, the warranty does apply to “consumer induced damage”. The OP was, therefore, justified in refusing to repair the mobile set of the complainant under warranty and they explained to the complainant all these facts through reply to the legal notice Ex.C5 dated 19.6.2015 and through emails correspondence Ex.C6 to Ex.C15. As such, we do not find any merit in this complaint and same is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost. However, complainant can get the mobile in question repaired from the OP on chargeable basis. Keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case, parties are left to bear their own cost. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Bhupinder Singh

20.05.2016 Member President