| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA. Consumer Complaint No. 374 of 29.9.2017 Decided on: 5.9.2018 Suresh Gupta W/o Sh.Surinder Gupta, age 62 years R/o H.no.7, Dhillon Colony, Patiala. …………...Complainant Versus 1. M/s Phone Zone, Shop No.01, Old Kabari Market, Bahera Road, Patiala, through its Prop. 2. Lenovo Service Centre, Service Center Network, Business Group, CSR SCO No.45, Leela Bhawan Market, Patiala, through its Manager. 3. Lenovo ( India) Pvt. Ltd., Ferns Loons Level-2, Doddeua Kundi Vill. Marathohalli, Onter Ring Road, K.R.Puram, Hobli (Bangalore) 560037, through its General Manager. …………Opposite Parties Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. QUORUM Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member Sh.Kanwaljeet Singh, Member ARGUED BY: Sh.Rakesh Malhotra, Advocate, counsel for complainant. Opposite party No.1 ex-parte. None for Opposite parties No.2&3. ORDER SMT.NEELAM GUPTA, MEMBER The case of the complainant is that he purchased one mobile set make Lenovo A 2020 16 GB from the authorized dealer i.e. OP no.1 on 1.1.2017 vide invoice No.VAT 36 dated 1.1.2017, for a sum of Rs.6500/- with the assurance given by OP no.1 that the company has guarantee/warrantee for the mobile for one year. After two –three days of the purchase, the mobile phone started giving problems. Complainant approached OP no.1 who immediately returned the same to the complainant stating that the defect has been removed. Again on8.5.2017, the speaker of mobile set stopped working. Ms Ashima Gupta, daughter of the complainant, visited service centre of Op no.2 and handed over the mobile set to its official who issuedreceipt vide customer complaint code No.C-0002 dated 8.5.2017. After one month i.e. on 9.6.2017, the mobile set was returned by OP no.2 to the complainant stating that they had replaced the speaker and the same is OK but the mobile set did not work properly. The mobile set is still defective and suffering from manufacturing defects. The complainant got issued legal notice through counsel Sh.Rakesh Malhotra,Advocate on dated 24.6.2017.Thereafter, OP sent a letter to the complainant for sending the IMEI number of the mobile set in question alongwith address with mobile phone number, which was duly sent to the OPs through e-mail dated 7.7.2017.Thereafter, the OP asked for some information from the complainant which was duly given vide e-mail dated 3.9.2017. But till today dispute has not been settled. There is thus deficiency of service on the part of the OPs, which caused mental agony and physical harassment to the complainant. Hence this complaint filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act(for short the Act),1986, with the prayer for giving directions to the OPs toreplace the mobile set with new one or any other alternative relief, to pay Rs.20,000/- as damages alongwith Rs.15000/-aslitigation expenses. Upon notice OPs No.2&3 appeared and filed their joint written version while OP no.1 despite service failed to come present and was accordingly proceeded against exparte. In the written version filed by OPs No.2&3, it is stated that a base warranty is provided to all the products of Lenovo from the date of purchase and thus the Smart phone of the complainant had a warranty one year from the date of purchase i.e. from 1st January,2017 to 31st December,2017. It is further stated that no guarantee was provided and the statement of Lenovo Limited Warranty terms were provided alongwith the product at the time of purchase. Further more the transaction is between the complainant and OP no.1. It is stated that the first and only one problem was reported on 8th May,2017 i.e. after four months of purchase of the handset for the issue of power on/off and the same was duly looked into by the engineer vide SR # SOIN096151105080006 and resolved the same by replacing the hardware parts of the Smart Phone and handed over to the complainant to his satisfaction on the same day i.e. 8.6.2017. Further as per terms of Lenovo Limited Warranty, “If the product does not function as warranted during the warranty period, you may obtain warranty service by contacting Lenovo or a Lenovo approved Service Provider….”. It is further stated that as per the Warranty terms of Lenovo, “If the service provider determines that it is unable to repair your product, the Service Provider will replace it with one that is at least functionally equivalent.
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 product to your place of purchase or to Lenovo for a refund of your purchase price”. No complaint call has been registered for the Smart Phone in question. The receipt of legal notice is admitted. Upon receipt of the required details, the authorized representative has contacted the complainant on phone on various dates, discussed the issue in detail and provided a resolution i.e. to visit the authorized service provider of the OP to avail the services under warranty. However, till date the complainant has not availed the bonafide offer of ‘FOC Service alongwith the extension of warranty by two months to his Smart Phone. It is stated that the issue could not be resolved/redressed only on account of lack of co-operation on the part of the complainant. Further it is stated that no expert report regarding the defect in the subject smart Phone has been filed by the complainant in support of her allegation. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. After denying all other averments the OPs prayed for dismissal of the complaint. In support of the complaint, the ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered in evidence Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant alongwith documents Ex.C1 copy of retail invoice, Ex.C2 copy of job sheet, Ex.C3 copy of customer information slip, Exs.C4&C5, copies of e-mails,Ex.C6 copy of legal notice, Exs.C7 to C9 postal receipts and closed the evidence. Sh.Anjan Bhatnagar, Manager of OPs No.2&3 suffered the statement to the effect that the written version already filed by OPs No.2&3 on dated 5.2.2018 be read as evidence on behalf of OPs No.2&3 and closed the evidence of OPs No.2&3. We have heard the ld. counsel for the complainant and also gone through the record of the case, carefully. Ex.C1 is the invoice whereby the complainant purchased one mobile phone from OP no.1 on Ist January,2017 for a sum of Rs.6500/-.In the month of May,2017, the speaker of the said mobile phone stopped working and the complainant deposited the mobile phone with OP no.2 vide job sheet dated 8.5.20117 i.e. Ex.C2.After one month OP no.2 returned the mobile phone after replacing the speaker with a new one. On reaching home, the complainant found that the speaker was not functional and accordingly he contacted OP no.2 vide job sheet i.e. Ex.C3 in which it is clearly written, ‘Mobile speaker not working ever after it was replaced once. Last complaint was on 8th May”. OP no.2 returned the mobile phone by writing, “Returned without repair as paucity of time”. After that the complainant also wrote various e-mails to the OPs but to no use. The complainant also sent a legal notice, but the OPs failed to listen to the genuine complaint of the complainant. The defect occurred in the mobile phone during warranty period and the OPs were bound to rectify the same which they failed to do and it amounted to deficiency in service on their part. - In view of the aforesaid discussion, we allow the complaint of the complainant with a direction to the OPs to refund the amount of Rs.6500/- i.e. the price of the mobile phone to the complainant and the complainant should return the mobile phone in question alongwith the accessories to the OPs. The OPs are also directed to pay a sum of Rs.3000/- as compensation for the harassment undergone by the complainant which is inclusive of litigation expenses. Order be complied by the OPs within a period of 30 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copies of this order. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost under the Rules.Thereafter, file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.
ANNOUNCED DATED:5.9.2018 KANWALJEET SINGH NEELAM GUPTA MEMBER MEMBER | |
