Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/10/2018

Mr.Kotteeswaran S/o.V.Arunachalam - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s.Dotcom Anna Nagar Authorised seller of Lenovo Mobiles ,HCL chennai Authorised Lenovo Mobiles - Opp.Party(s)

R.Thayanidhi

21 Dec 2018

ORDER

 

                                                            Complaint presented on:  12.01.2018

                                                                Order pronounced on:  21.12.2018

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT:  TMT.K.LAKSHMIKANTHAM, B.Sc., B.L., DTL.,DCL, DL & AL - PRESIDENT

 

TMT.P.V.JEYANTHI B.A., MEMBER - I

 

FRIDAY THE 21^st  DAY OF DECEMBER 2018

 

C.C.NO.10/2018

 

Mr.Kotteswaran,

S/o.V.Arunachalam,

1 B 1, Mallikka Nagar, Pallavaram,

Chennai – 600 117.

                                                                                    ….. Complainant

 

..Vs..

1.M/s. Dotcom (Anna Nagar),

Authorized Seller of Lenovo Mobiles,

No.AA 115, shanthi Colony, Anna nagar,

Chennai – 600 040.

 

2.HCL – Chennai,

Authorized Lenovo Mobile Service Centre,

HCL Touch, Ground Floor, Habeeb Towers,

196, (Old No.756) Vasan Avenue, Annasalai,

Chennai – 600 002.

 

3. The General Manager,

Lenovo Mobiles Manufacturing Unit,

No.19/1A, 2A Edayar Palayam Village,

Cuddalore Main Road, Thavalakuppam,

Pondicherry – 605 007.

 

 

 

 

4. The Managing Director,

Lenovo India Private Limited (Registered Office),

Ferns Icon, Level-2, Doddenakund Village,

Marathhalli Outer Ring  Road,

Marathhalli Post,

Kr Puram,Banagaluru – 560 037.

 

.....Opposite Parties

Date of the complaint                                     : 19.01.2018

Counsel for the Complainant               : R.Thayanidhi, S.Rasak, P.Deepalakshmi

 

Counsel for the 2^nd  Opposite Party           : M/s.V.Sounder Rajan & S.Gunasekaran

 

Counsel for  the 1^st , 3^rd & 4^th opposite parties : Ex – Parte ( 22.02.2018)

 

 

O R D E R

 

BY THE PRESIDENT TMT.K.LAKSHMIKANTHAM, B.Sc., B.L., DTL.,DCL, DL & AL

          This complaint is filed by the complainant to direct the opposite parties to refund the amount of Rs.17,300/- paid by the complainant towards cost of the defective mobile and to  pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards mental agony, and  pain caused by such deficiency in service  with cost of the complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The complainant purchased Lenovo Mobile-Z2 Plus for Rs.17,300/- on 24.04.2017 from the 1^st opposite party  trusting the assurances given by the 1^st opposite party . 1^st opposite party is the authorized seller of the Lenovo mobiles along with other mobiles. 2^nd opposite party is the authorized service centre of Lenovo mobiles. 3^rd opposite party  is the General Manager of  Lenovo mobiles Manufacturing unit and the 4^th opposite party  is the Managing Director of Lenovo mobiles India private Ltd at Bangalore. From the next day of purchase the mobile was observed with many defects such as overheating , receiver problem, loud speaker, auto on, beep sound while calling, and hanging issues.The 1^st opposite party  had directed the complainant to approach the 2^nd opposite party  and as per the advice of the 2^nd opposite party, the complainant deposited the mobile  and collected it on the same day having the belief that the defects are settled permanently. After then also the mobile was observed with multiple defects  and hence the complainant approached the 1^st opposite party for replacement and the 1^st opposite party had refused to replace. On the advice of the 1^st opposite party  the complainant approached the 2^nd opposite party , who in turn refused to replace the defective mobile but the defects observed  and replaced the part  Z2132 in MB 4+6 4G CS. Even after this, the problem remained as such therefore it is a clear evidence of manufacturing defects and the back cover also does not seat properly. Opposite parties failed to respond to resolve the problem and request for replacement was not made by them. Opposite parties have deliberately and willfully neglected to complete the work within their warranty period. Therefore this complaint is filed  to direct the opposite parties  to refund a sum of Rs.17,300/- towards the cost of the mobile and to pay compensation of  Rs.1,00,000/- for mental agony and Rs.20,000/- for cost.

2. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE 2^nd   OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

          The complainant approached the second opposite party for defects in his mobile and it was related to software issues and the same was serviced and the complainant  had issued  the acknowledgment on 29.04.2017  that the smart phone is in fully  working condition including all accessories. Again the set was serviced after 5 months, i.e. on 13.09.2017. Hanging issues was set right by installing new software. The replacement request has to be considered by the  3^rd and the 4^th opposite parties  who can decide upon  the replacement  and not the 2^nd  opposite party  or the 1^st opposite party. Again the mobile was brought for service on 25.09.2017 with the problem of ringer issues and it was kept in observation and no problem was found in the handset and the mobile was returned to the complainant. The next service was done on 31.10.2017.The problem was corrected by replacing the mother board and the mobile was collected by the complainant after repair. As per the warranty, the replacement of the defective part was done. The back cover disturbances as said by the complainant is denied. Therefore there is no deficiency in service or  unfair trade practice and the complaint is to be dismissed.

3. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

          2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what extent?

4. POINT NO :1 

          The complainant had purchased the Lenovo Mobile-Z2 Plus mobile from the 1^st opposite party for Rs.17,500/- on 24 .04.2017 as per Ex.A1 invoice. The complainant contends that the mobile phone had multiple defects such as overheating, Mic and receiver problems, loud speaker auto on, beep sound while calling and hanging issues from  the very next day of its purchase itself. when he approached the 1^st opposite party, he directed the complainant to approach the 2^nd opposite party and the service was done on several occasions at the request of the complainant  and finally the mobile phone is beyond serviceable condition  and the replacement request of the complainant was not fulfilled by the opposite parties  as per the warranty terms and conditions. Since his request was not fulfilled, this complaint is filed for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

5. The 2^nd opposite party resisted the complaint explaining that they have done the perfect service and replaced some parts and the mobile was returned in good condition. The power to replace the mobile is vested with 3^rd and the 4^th opposite parties and the second opposite party  is not responsible for the deficiency in service and also for unfair trade practice.

          6. Ex.A1 is the invoice for the Mobile. Ex.A2 is the placement of service order by the complainant to the 2^nd opposite party  on 29.04.2017 for Mic, receiver problem, over heat, loud speaker auto on, data loss as per record. After service, the mobile was received by the complainant in full working condition with accessories.  Ex.A3 is also the service order placed by the complainant on14.09.2017.The problem as per Ex.A3 is the software updates and it was done by the 2^nd opposite party  and again the complainant had taken back the mobile in full working condition with full accessories. On 19.09.2017 the service to the mobile was done as per Ex.A4.Finally when it was given for service on 25.09.2017 it was kept in observation and no problem was found out by the 2^nd opposite party as per Ex.A5. Handset was returned to the complainant. Again there was a customer information  slip in Ex.A6 dated 28.10.2017 indicating the defect in the mobile.  Likewise  there was another  service order dated 31.10.2017 in  Ex.A7,  wherein, the service for beep sound  while calling,  very slow receiver in loudspeaker, data loss  were the service notes.   Admittedly the services were done every now and then by the 2^nd opposite party at the request of the complainant.

        7.  Notice in Ex.A8 dated 7.12.2017 is issued by the complainant to opposite parties 1 to 4 informing the defects in the mobile and also pointing out the false assurances given by the opposite parties  and the repairs done so far. The opposite parties were called upon by the complainant in the above said notice to provide a new mobile instead of the defective mobile supplied . Notices were received by all opposite parties  vide ackg in Ex.A8 series. Ex.A9 is the e-mail reply by the Executive Director for services at Lenovo , for the assurance given for speedy resolution. Lenovo warranty information leaflet is Ex.A10. The warranty terms reads as “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”.

          08.  Admittedly the mobile given for service to  the 2^nd opposite party  was within the warranty period.  2^nd opposite party   who has done service of the mobile, never  reported  as  unable to repair the product, but performed the repair work at the request of the complainant  as and when required and replaced some of the parts . Service records itself proves that inspite of the services done by 2^nd opposite party  for several times,  the mobile got repaired and as per the warranty terms , product may be returned to the  place of purchase or Lenovo for refund of purchase price. However, the services was done by the 2^nd opposite party  at the request of the complainant and some of the spare parts were replaced and the mobile was in use with the complainant. Under the above said  circumstances, we come to the conclusion that the mobile was  defective at the earliest point of time because of which it got repaired every now and then and was serviced by the 2^nd  opposite party  but  the entire responsibility falls on the manufacturer and the seller   for the defective mobile .   No reply to the notice given by the complainant to opposite parties  the  and opposite parties  3 and 4 have not cared about the genuine request made by the complainant also confirms  their deficiency in service.  2^nd opposite party  had only rendered the service  and responded to  the request of the complainant. Opposite parties  1, 3 and 4 have also not appeared before this forum  even after the receipt of notice and had not preferred to defend their case and also to disprove the case of the complainant. As contended by the 2^nd opposite party,  replacing  a new mobile is in the domain  of the 3^rd  and the 4^th opposite party  being the manufactures and since the defective mobile is sold by the 1^st opposite party , 1^st opposite party  is also held liable along with 3^rd and 4^th opposite parties  for the unfair trade practice and deficiency in service .  As discussed above, we are of the view that unnecessary harassment and mental agony is caused to the complainant  as pleaded by  him and it  is to be accepted as such and the complainant need to be compensated for all the defects instead of replacing the mobile. Therefore the 1, 3 and 4^th  opposite parties  are liable to pay the compensation.

09. POINT NO:2

          As decided  above, the complainant is entitled to get compensation of Rs.50,000/- for unfair trade practice  adopted by 1,3,4 opposite parties  and also for mental agony caused by opposite parties 1  ,3 and 4, besides a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses. The complaint against the 2^nd opposite party is liable to be dismissed.  

           In the result, the complaint is partly allowed. The opposite parties 1,3&4 jointly or severally are ordered to pay to the complainant  a sum of  Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) towards compensation for deficiency in service  and  unfair trade practice and for mental agony, besides a sum of  Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousand only) towards litigation expenses. The complaint against 2^nd  opposite party is dismissed.

The above amount shall be paid to the complainant within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which the above said amount shall carry 9% interest till the date of the payment.        

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 21^st  day of December 2018.

MEMBER – I                                                                PRESIDENT

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1  dated 24.04.2017                  Invoice No.DOT-000358

Ex.A2 dated 29.04.2017                   Lenovo Service Order No.SOINO

                                                230011704290050

 

Ex.A3 dated 14.09.2017                   Lenovo Service Order No.SOINO

                                                230011709140031

 

Ex.A4 dated 19.09.2017                   Lenovo Service Order No.JSI62001797

 

Ex.A5 dated 25.09.2017                   Lenovo Service Order No.SOINO

                                                SOINO230011709250013

Ex.A6 dated 28.10.2017                   Lenovo Customer Information Slip

 

Ex.A7 dated 31.10.2017                   Lenovo Service Order No.

                                                SOINO230011710310006

 

Ex.A8 dated 07.12.2017                   Final notice of request dated 07.12.2017 sent by

                                                Speed Post AD

 

Ex.A9 dated 16.12.2017                   E-mail

 

Ex.A10 dated NIL                             Lenovo full warranty information leaflet

 

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE 2^nd OPPOSITE PARTY :

 

Ex.B1 dated 29.04.2017                   Lenova Service Order

 

Ex.B2 dated 14.09.2017                   Lenova Service Order

 

Ex.B3 dated 31.10.2017                   Lenova Service Order

 

Ex.B4 dated NIL                     Terms of Warranty of Lenova

 

Ex.B5 dated NIL                     Extract of Service done by 2^nd opposite party

 

                                               

MEMBER – I                                                               PRESIDENT