DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOZHIKODE
PRESENT : Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN, M.Com, LLB: PRESIDENT
Smt. PRIYA.S, BAL, LLB, MBA (HRM) : MEMBER
Sri.V. BALAKRISHNAN, M Tech, MBA, LLB, FIE: MEMBER
Friday the 31st day of March 2023
CC No. 409/2015
Complainant
Prajeesh P,
‘Anaswaram’,
Konott (P.O),
Kozhikode-673 571.
Opposite Parties
1. New 3G Mobile World,
Seema Tower,
Mavoor Road,
Calicut.
(By.Adv.Sri.Dilkhush V.K)
2. Mobile Lab, Alfahad Arcade,
Sabha School Cross Road,
Puthiyara, Calicut.
3. Balaji Rangam,
Lenovo India Pvt Ltd,
ITD Ferns Icon Level-2,
Doddenekundi Village,
Maruthahalli, Outer Ring Road,
Bangalore -560 037.
(The 3rd opposite party was impleaded as per order in IA 218/2016).
ORDER
By Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN – PRESIDENT
This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
The case of the complainant, in brief, is as follows:
On 31-07-2014 the complainant purchased one Lenova P780 8GB Mobile phone from the shop of the 1st opposite party. But after a few days, it ceased working. He then approached the 1st opposite party, who directed him to the 2nd opposite party, which is the authorized service provider. After inspecting the mobile phone, the complainant was sent back by the 2nd opposite party stating that the device was beyond repairs. Again he approached them. Later he was informed that all the mobile phones in that batch were having complaints and on that basis the mobile hand set and the accessories were taken back by the 2nd opposite party on 04-12-2014.
3. Though he approached the opposite parties several times, the price of the product was not refunded to him and they informed him that the company has approved refund and the amount would reach his bank account. But till now he has not received the payment. He was put to great mental agony and hardship due to the irresponsible act and a conduct of the opposite parties. Hence the complaint claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-
4. The 3rd opposite party was impleaded as per order in IA 218/2016.
5. The 1st and 3rd opposite parties filed written version. The 2nd opposite party was set ex-parte.
6. The first opposite party in their version has admitted the purchase of the handset in question by the complainant from their shop. But the allegation that after some days, the hand set ceased to function is not correct. The complainant never approached the 1st opposite party. He might have approached the 2nd opposite party directly. The 1st opposite party is the dealer and post sales service is carried out by the second opposite party. The 1st opposite party never cheated the complainant nor did they commit any unfair trade practice or deficiency in service and they are not liable to refund the price or pay any compensation to the complainant.
7. According to the 3rd opposite party, there is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on their part. There is no inherent manufacturing defect in the phone. As a manufacturer and as a goodwill gesture, through an authorized representative, the company offered an amicable solution to the complainant. It was offered to refund the cost of the hand set against exchange of his phone with accessories and original invoice. Further the company offered replacement of a smart phone having an upgraded / advanced model against his old smart phone. However, the complainant has denied availing any one of the above bonafide offers for reasons best known to him. With the above contentions, the 3rd opposite party prays for the dismissal of the complaint
8. The points that arise for determination in this complaint are :
1. Whether there was any deficiency of service or unfair trade
practice on the part of the opposite parties, as alleged?
2. Reliefs and costs.
9. The complainant and the 1st opposite party have filed affidavit. Exts.A1 and A2 were marked.
10. Heard.
11. Point No.1 – The complainant has approached this Commission seeking compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- from the opposite parties alleging unfair trade practice and deficiency of service.
12. The first opposite party is the dealer, the 3rd opposite party is the manufacturer and the 2nd opposite party is the service provider of Lenovo P780 8GB mobile hand set. The complainant purchased a Lenovo P780 8GB mobile hand set from the 1st opposite party on 31-07-2014 paying Rs.15,500/- as per Ext A1 invoice. The hand set ceased working after a few days during the warranty period. The complainant approached the authorized service provider on 18-10-2014 as can be seen from Ext A2 Lenovo Service record. The hand set was not repaired and it was agreed to refund the price. It has been clearly mentioned in Ext A2 that ‘refund approved’. Further the hand set and the box were received by the authorized service provider from the complainant and this has been endorsed in Ext A2. There is no serious dispute on the above aspects.
13. The definite case of the complainant is that he has not received the refund yet. The stand taken by the 3rd opposite party is that they have offered refund of the cost of the hand set against exchange of the hand set with accessories and original invoice and further offered replacement of a smart phone having an upgrade/an advance model, Lenova Vibe P1 against his old smart phone, but the offer was declined by the complainant. But the allegation that the offer for refund was not acceptable to the complainant appears to be unbelievable. If the offer for refund was not acceptable, the complainant would not have returned the hand set and accessories to the 2nd opposite party. Moreover, he would not have approached this Commission with the present complaint alleging that the refund offered was not made. The complainant has asserted in the affidavit that in spite of having contacted the opposite parties several times, no refund was made. There is no reason to disbelieve the complainant in this regard. The opposite parties have also no case that the refund was actually made. The act of the opposite parties in not refunding the price as agreed in Ext A2 and that too after receiving back the hand set and the accessories is not justifiable. The irresponsible act and conduct of the opposite parties constitute unfair trade practice and deficiency of service. The complainant was deprived of his money and the device. The complainant is entitled to get refund of the price of the mobile hand set amounting to Rs.15,500/-. He was put to gross mental agony, hard ship and inconvenience due to the irresponsible conduct of the opposite parties, for which, he is entitled to be compensated adequately. Considering the entire facts and circumstances, we are of the view that a sum of Rs.5,000/- will be reasonable compensation in this case. The complainant is also entitled to get Rs.3,000/- as cost of the proceedings.
14. Point No.2: In the light of the finding on the above point, the complaint is disposed of as follows:
a) CC 409/2015 is allowed in part.
b) The opposite parties are hereby directed to refund Rs.15,500/-(Rupees Fifteen Thousand and Five Hundered only) to the complainant, being the price of the mobile hand set.
c) The opposite parties are directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) to the complainant as compensation for the mental agony, hardship and inconvenience suffered.
d) The opposite parties are directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only) as cost of proceedings to the complainant.
e) The payment as aforestated shall be made with within 30 days of the receipt of copy of this order, failing which, the amount of Rs.15,500/- shall carry an interest @ 6% per annum from the date of this order till actual payment.
Pronounced in open Commission on this the 31st day of March 2023.
Date of Filing: 06-08-2015.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
Sd/-
MEMBER
Sd/-
MEMBER
APPENDIX
Exhibits for the Complainant :
Ext. A1 - Ext A1 invoice dated 31-07-2014.
Ext. A2 – Lenivo Service Record.
Exhibits for the Opposite Party
Nil.
Witnesses for the Complainant
PW1 - Prajeesh P.
Witnesses for the opposite parties
Nil.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
Sd/-
MEMBER
Sd/-
MEMBER
Forwarded/ By Order
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
