BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.
Dated this the 15th day of September 2018
Filed on : 05-10-2016
PRESENT:
Shri. Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.
Shri. Sheen Jose, Member.
Smt. Beena Kumari V.K. Member.
CC.No.564/2016
Between
Beena M.S., : Complainant
D/o. M. Sukumaran, 2/6F, (party-in-person)
5A. REGAL Avalon,
Mooleppadam road,
Friends Lane, Vazhakkala,
Kakkanad West P.O.,
Ernakulam-682 030.
And
1. The Manager, : Opposite parties
Lenovo (India) Pvt. Ltd., (parties-in-person)
Ferns Icon, Level 2,
Doddenakundi Village,
Marathahalli, Outer Ring road,
KRPuram, Hobly,
Bangalore-560 037,
Karnata.
2. Judin Joseph, Manager,
HCL Touch
(Lenovo Exclusive Centre)
31/738, B3,
Vyttila-Thammanam road,
Vyttila, Kochi-682 019.
O R D E R
Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.
1. Complainant’s case
2. The complainant purchased a Lenovo mobile phone manufactured by the 1st opposite party, from M/s. Asher Technology, Kakkanadu, Cochin-37 on 18-11-2015 on payment of Rs. 10,300/- which is inclusive of the cost of a 16 GB SD card . The 1st opposite party, manufacturer had waranteed the performance of the mobile phone for one year. After using the phone for about 4 months, it became defective and it was submitted to the authorized service centre on 04-04-2016. Again it became defective on 21-04-2016. Again on 09-06-2016 also the phone became function less. According to the service technician the PCB of the phone was to be changed. And accordingly the PCB was replaced. Again after 2 months, the same problem propped up and the phone was submitted for further repairs on 20-09-2016. Even after submitting the mobile phone for about 6 months to solve the problem the service centre were not able to set right the problem. Therefore, the complainant had sent an e-mail on 27-09-2016 to the 1st opposite party, manufacturer and one of the representative, who is said to be technical expert had communicated with the complainant in this regard. The phone which was entrusted to the 2nd opposite party has not been repaired and given back to the complainant and hence this complaint, seeking refund of the purchase price, compensation and the cost of litigation.
3. Notices were issued to the opposite parties. The opposite parties appeared and sought time for filing version. The 1st opposite party filed a version contending inter-alia as follows:
4. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the 1st opposite party. The phone was repaired during the warranty period. There was no inherent manufacturing defects for the phone. Since the 1st problem arose only after the purchase of 4 months, it has to be inferred that there was no inherent manufacturing defects. On 20-04-2016, the 2nd complainant logged a complaint regarding heating issue, was also resolved. Again on 09-06-2016 when the complainant that raised further complaint that the hardware adjustments were done and the phone was working in good condition. On 16-09-2016 the charging issue was diagnosed and the software was upgraded. The opposite party was willing to provide the complainant a new replacement of any one of the upgrade mobile phone as against the old mobile phone and the complainant was not willing to accept that offer. The complainant has not shown any inclination to comply the provision of Section 13 by accepting the request of the opposite party to get the phone exchanged with another upgraded model K3K4 model . Therefore the complaint is sought to be dismissed.
5. Following issues were settled for consideration.
i. Whether the complainant had proved that there was any
deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
ii. Reliefs and costs
6. The evidence in this case consists of the proof affidavit of the complainant and Exbts. A1 to A6 documents on the side of the complainant. The opposite party did not adduce any evidence.
7. Heard
8. Issue No. i. As per Exbt. A1 dated 18-11-2015 the complainant purchased a Lenovo A7000 mobile phone and micro SD card worth Rs. 300/- on a total payment of Rs. 10,300/- from M/s. Asher Technology Kakkanad. The phone was entrusted to the Lenovo service centre at Vyttila, Kochi on 16-09-2016 as per Exbt. A2, as she was not getting the net work service connection. On 27-09-2016, the complainant had issued an e-mail communication to the 1st opposite party regarding the malfunctioning of the mobile phone. It was replied with a direction to the complainant to approach a service centre. Exbt. A3 is the said communication. She had again issued another letter to the 1st opposite party intimating that the device purchased by her had to be taken to the service centre for the last 5 times and warranty of the phone would expire on 18-11-2015 and the phone was continuing to be defective. Exbt. A4 is the chat communication between the complainant and the technician of the opposite party . In the communication, the complainant is seen to have stated that she need a replacement of the phone with a same configuration, if the problem of existing phone could not be resolved. The opposite party had replied that in order to get a replacement or refund the customers had report the issue within 7 days from the invoice date and therefore the opposite party was unable to proceed with the request of the complainant. Exbt. A6 is the warranty condition. The complainant is not seen to have accepted the terms and conditions of the warranty and there is nothing in evidence to show that the opposite party had invited the attention of the complainant to the terms and conditions of the warranty with regard to replacement of the phone.
9. In the absence of any evidence on the part of the opposite party, we find that the opposite party had accepted the contentions of the complainant that the phone was having continuous malfunctioning from the 4th month of its purchase itself. It is admitted that the phone has to be taken to the service centre many times within a period of 4 months. Opposite parties had also submitted the said contentions in their version. Therefore it is proved that the phone had recurring instances of malfunctioning which has to be attributed to defects in manufacturing. The contentions of the opposite party that the phone did not have any malfunctioning for the first four months is of no avail for the opposite party when one year warranty against manufacturing defects were provided by the 1st opposite party to the complainant. The further allegations of the opposite party that the opposite party was willing to exchange the subject phone with a higher version phone was not accepted by the complainant would indicate that the opposite party had admitted that the present phone was worthless. opposite parties cannot compel the complainant purchase a higher version by paying a further amount from her pocket. Such compulsion would amount to unfair trade practice. We find that the complainant has succeeded in proving that the opposite parties had committed clear deficiency in their service by providing a defective product to the complainant, which had inherent manufacturing defects. The complainant had to suffer inconvenience to take the phone to the service centre for at least 5 times within a span of 5 months starting from the 4th month of the purchase of the phone.
10. In the circumstance, we find that the complainant is entitled to get a brand new, defect free phone of similar configuration of the subject phone along with a compensation of Rs. 10,000/-, which would include the cost of litigation. Issue is accordingly found in favour of the complainant.
11. Issue No. ii. In the result, having found issue No. i infavour of the complainant we direct the opposite parties 1 and 2, who are jointly and severally made liable
i. to replace the subject mobile phone with a brand new one of similar configuration to the complainant within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
ii. To pay a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant for the commission of deficiency in service and causing agony and inconvenience for the complainant, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 15th day of September 2018
Sd/-
Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.
Sd/-
Sheen Jose, Member.
Sd/-
Beena Kumari V.K., Member.
Forwarded/By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
Appendix
Complainant's Exhibits
Exbt. A1 : Copy of retail invoice dt. 18-11-2015 A2 : Copy of lenovo service order
A3 : Copy of e-mail
dt. 7th day of October 2016
A4 : Copy of e-mail dt. 29-09-2016
A5 : Copy of photo copy of phone
A6 : Lenovo limited warranty with terms and
conditions
Opposite party's exhibits: : Nil
Copy of order despatched on :
By Post: By Hand:
