Haryana

Ambala

CC/144/2017

Gaurav Sachdeva - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Lenovo - Opp.Party(s)

Rakesh Kumar

16 Apr 2018

ORDER

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AMBALA

 

                                                          Complaint case no.        : 144 of 2017

                                                          Date of Institution         : 17.05.2017

                                                          Date of decision   : 16.04.2018

 

 

Gaurav Sachdeva, resident of village Jalbera, Ambala City.

……. Complainant.

Vs.

 

1.       M/s Lenovo (India) Private Ltd. Through its Director, Ferns Icon, Level 2, Doddenkundi Village, Marathahali Outer Ring Road, K.R.Puram Hobli, Banglore -560037.

2.       M/s Prestine Enamor Through its Proprietor/Authorised Officer, Shop No.175/7, First floor, Bank Road, Ambala Cantt. 

 

 ….….Opposite Parties.

 

Before:        Sh. D.N. Arora, President.

                   Sh. Pushpender  Kumar, Member.            

                   Ms. Anamika Gupta, Member.

 

 

Present:       Sh. Rakesh Kumar, counsel for the complainant.

                   Sh. Avtar Singh, counsel for the OP No.1.

OP No. 2 ex parte v.o.d. 12.07.2017.

 

ORDER:

In nutshell, brief facts of the present complaint is that the complainant had purchased  Lenovo Mobile Handset bearing Model No.Lenovo Vibe K4 Note (Black, 16GB) and its I.M.E.I No. are 861101031594678 and 861101031594686 from the above name OP No.1 vide Invoice No.KA-BLR6-144105041-12078517 dated 28.04.2016 amounting to Rs. 11,999/- with one year warranty.  After passage of sometime  the complainant found various problems in his mobile set including the problem of display i.e. screen of set started fluctuating/bubbling and creating flash light on display screen and power boot failure along with major problem  of phone Restart and problem in Data Transfer and these faults were instantaneously brought in the knowledge of OP No.1 and on the advice of OP No.1, complainant went to OP No.2 in second week of June 2016 and asked for repairing services of the set. On which the OP No.2 upgrade the software of the mobile set and return the same to the complainant with assurance that the defect of the mobile set is removed but after some time again the set started giving same problem. After that, the complainant again and again went to OP No.2 i.e. in November 2016 , January, 2017 and 07.04.2017 with the same problems. On  assurance on parts of OP No.2 complainant wait in the office of OP No.2 on 08.04.2017 and after checking  the set, the OP No.2 make lame excuses by saying  that some parts of the hand set are duplicate and there is need to change the same. The complainant further stated that  when he was handed  over the  set to the OP No.2 on 07.04.2017 and at that time there all the parts were in original condition. Now it is seemed that the OP no. 2 has changed the original parts of set by replacing  the same with duplicate one and thus causing loss to the complainant.  The OP No.2 handed over the set to him but the defect in the same was not rectified. A legal notice served upon to the Ops through his counsel on 25.04.2017.  It is a case of malpractice, unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of Ops. Hence the present complaint.

2.                Registered notice issued to Op No.2 but none has turned up on his behalf and he was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 12.07.2017. Upon notice, OP No.1 appeared through counsel and tendered written statement and stated that as per the records of the data base of the OP No.1, a complaint  call was logged for the issue of touch during  the month of April, 2017 for the Smart Phone in question and the engineer of the authorized Service Provider of the OP No.1 had duly looked into the same and  found that the internal display was damaged to Smart phone of the complainant and hence identified as “Customer Induced Damage (CID)/Physical Damage” which  is not covered under the Statement of Lenovo Limited Warranty  for providing  ‘Free of Cost Service’. The complainant was duly informed that no warranty claim would be entertained as the warranty terms explicitly states that damage resulting from misuse or improper maintenance are not covered under the warranty.  However, it was informed to the complainant that service is assured on chargeable basis which was not accepted by the complainant and hence the engineer of authorized service provider was constrained to return  the Smart phone without repair and closed the complaint call on the same day. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Op no.1 and prayed for dismissal the present complaint.

3.               To prove his version complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure C-X with documents as annexure C-1 to C-5 and close his evidence. On the other hand, Counsel for the OP No.1 tendered a statement that his written statement be read on part of his evidence and  closed his evidence.

4.                We have heard learned counsels for both the parties and carefully gone through the case file. It is admitted fact that the mobile has been purchased from OP No.2 for amounting Rs. 11999/- as per Annexure C-1. The complainant has placed on record job sheet as Annexure C-3. It is mentioned in the job sheet that the “handset display is in broken condition, said handset already  got checked outside somewhere in local market there are 3 to 4 scbew from in side found missed in the handset, hence cannot be covered under warranty”. Rather OP No.1 has taken the stand that “warranty does not cover”. It provides that in event of failure or damage resulting from misuse, abuse, accident, modification, unsuitable physical or operating environment, natural disaster, power surges, improper maintenance, or use not in accordance with the product information materials. The above said plea has not been controverted by the complainant.  Although there is no terms and conditions of the policy  on the file but whenever it is proved that the mobile in question got damaged due to mishandling by the complainant as per the Annexure C-3. The complainant has not placed any record the above said job sheet has been issued by the service centre is not correct. We are view that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Ops. Complainant has not able to prove his case. Hence, the present compliant is liable to be dismissed and same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copy of the order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File after due compliance be consigned to record room.  

Announced on : 16.04.2018

 

 

                    

 

 

 (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)       (ANAMIKA  GUPTA)          (D.N. ARORA)

Member                                 Member                                      President