DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, NORTH-WEST
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
CSC-BLOCK-C, POCKET-C, SHALIMAR BAGH, DELHI-110088.
CC No: 82/2018
D.No._______________________ Dated: __________________
IN THE MATTER OF:
AMIT KUMAR S/o SH. RAM KUMAR,
R/o 74/220, R.K. ASHRAM MARG,
DLZ AREA, SEC.-1, GOLE MARKET, DELHI.… COMPLAINANT
Versus
1. RAJ TELECOM (DEALER),
L-625-626, DDA FLAT, MANGOL PURI,
DELHI-110083.
2. LENOVO SERVICE CENTER, (SERVICE CENTER),
G-32, AGGARWAL CITY PLAZA, NEAR M2K,
MANGALAM PLACE, SECTOR-3,
ROHINI, DELHI-110085.
3. LENOVO INDIA PVT. LTD., (MANUFACTURER)
SECTOR-49, GURGAON-122001. … OPPOSITE PARTY(IES)
CORAM:SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT
SH. BARIQ AHMED, MEMBER
MS. USHA KHANNA, MEMBER
Date of Institution: 29.01.2018
Date of decision:03.04.2019
MS. USHA KHANNA, MEMBER
ORDER
1. The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OPs under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 therebyalleging that the complainant purchased a mobile handset model
CC No.82/2018 Page 1 of 7
brand-Lenovo K-6 Note for a sum of Rs.14,999/- vide retail invoice no. 3708 dated 20.03.2017 from OP-1. The complainant further alleged that on the 1st day, the said mobile handset was not working well and the mobile handset is having voice-problem/speaker problem, battery-discharged, network lost/network auto drop and the complainant approached the dealer i.e. OP-1 and requested for the replacement of the said defective mobile handset and OP-1 asked the complainant to visit service center i.e. OP-2 for solution and on suggestion of OP-1, the complainant approached OP-2 and submitted the said defective mobile handset. Thereafter, OP-2 rectified the problem of the said mobile handset and OP-2 also said that the problem has been removed and promised if the same will again create problem, the mobile handset will be changed with a new one as per the company policy. The complainant further alleged that after few days, again the same problem arose in the said mobile handset and the complainant again visited OP-2 on 28.03.2017, the mobile handset was checked by OP-2 and it was returned back to the complainant without repairing due to reason of manufacturing defect in the said mobile handset and OP-2 was unable to rectify the problem of the said mobile handset and after few days i.e. 08.04.2017, the complainant again visited OP-2 and again requested to rectify/replace the defective mobile handset but OP-2
CC No.82/2018 Page 2 of 7
refused to repair/replacement and further OP-2 suggested the complainant to approach the company/manufacturer for replacement and the complainant approached OP-3 also but there is no proper response. The complainant further alleged that the complainant is very much disturbed of the defective mobile handset and due to this, the complainant is in very loss and the complainant accordingly alleged that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs.
2. On these allegations the complainant has filed the complaint praying for direction to the OPs to refund the amount of the said mobile handset i.e. Rs.14,999/- because the said mobile handset has many defects and it has not been rectified permanently as yet by the OPs as well as compensation of Rs.70,000/- for causing him mental agony and harassment and has also sought litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/-.
3. Noticeswere issued to OP-1 & OP-2 through speed post for appearance on 07.03.2018 & 21.05.2018 and the notices were delivered to OP-1 on 14.05.2018 and OP-2 on 11.05.2018 as per track reports and none has appeared on behalf of OP-1 & OP-2 and as such OP-1 & OP-2 have been proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 21.05.2018.Only OP-3 has been contesting the case and has filed reply/written statement wherein OP-3 submitted that the case is not maintainable and there is no deficiency in service on the part of
CC No.82/2018 Page 3 of 7
OP-3 and the case is liable to be dismissed. OP-3 further submitted that OP-2 the service centre of OP-3 has rectified the problem by carrying out the part replacement of the sub board free of cost under warrantee when the same was brought to the service center and as such the complainant was not entitled either to the replacement with a new one or the refund towards the cost the mobile handset and the part replacement has been carried out free of cost under warrantee and the complainant was still demanding a refund towards the cost of the mobile handset is unwarranted. OP-3 further submitted that the Lenovo Limited Warrantee stated that “if your service provider determines that it is unable to either repair or replace your product your service provider will replace it with one that is functionally equivalent. If the service provider determines that it is unable to either repair or replace your product, your sole remedy is to return your product to your place of purchase or to Lenovo for a refund of your purchase price.” OP-3 further submitted that the problem in the mobile handset was on account of faulty use and not on account of any manufacturing defect in the mobile handset and the same had occurred due to physical damage as “Device Corners Damaged” as clearly stated in the service report which is a customer induced damage (CID) issue. OP-3 further submitted that as per the data base of OP the correct factual position is that a call was lodged on 28.03.2017 vide SO#
CC No.82/2018 Page 4 of 7
SOIN0231201703280026 for Mic. Issue and the mobile handset of the complainant was thoroughly examined and the said grievances of the complainant were duly looked into and the necessary rectification and replacement of the sub board of the mobile handset were duly carried out free of cost under warrantee and after carrying out the necessary replacement the case was closed on 28.03.2017 and as per the terms of the warrantee, in the 1st instance the mobile handset is only required to be repaired.
4. The complainant filed rejoinderand denied the contentions of OP-3.
5. In order to prove his case, the complainant filed his affidavit in evidence and also filed written arguments. The complainant also placed on record copy of retail invoice no. 3708 dated 20.03.2017 for purchase of mobile handset for a total value of Rs.14,999/- issued by OP-1, copy of Customer Information as well as copy of token Slip dated 19.01.2018 issued by OP-2.
6. On the other hand, Sh. Shankara Narayanan Prakash,Technical Manager-Smartphone Contact Center ofOP-3 filed his affidavit in evidence. OP-3 also filed copy of Lenovo Limited Warrantee and copy of Customer Information Slip dated 19.01.2018. OP-3 has also filed written arguments.
7. This forum has considered the case of the complainant in the lightof evidence of both the parties and documents placed on record by the complainant. The case of the complainant has remained
CC No.82/2018 Page 5 of 7
consistent and undoubted. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the case of the complainant. It is hard to believe that the complainant will cause damage to his mobile handset by using in a faulty manner. Moreover, it is hard to believe that the complainant will lodge a false complaint against the newly purchased handset immediately after purchase. Admittedly the mobile handset was within warrantee period and as OPs have failed to rectify the problem in the mobile handset and as such OP-2 & OP-3 have indulged in unfair trade practice and there is deficiency in service on the part of OP-2 & OP-3 and it appears that there has been a manufacturing and inherent defect in the mobile handset. Accordingly, OP-2 & OP-3 are held guilty of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.
8. Accordingly, OP-2& OP-3 jointly or severally are directed as under:
i) To refund to the complainant an amount of Rs.14,999/- being the price of mobile handset on return all the accessories and bill/invoice by the complainant.
ii) To pay an amount of Rs.6,000/- as compensation towards mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant.
iii) To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.3,000/- towards cost of litigation.
9. The above amount shall be paid by the OP-2& OP-3 jointly or severally to the complainant within 30 days from the date of
CC No.82/2018 Page 6 of 7
receiving copy of this order failing which OP-2& OP-3 shall be liable to pay interest on the entire awarded amount @ 10% per annum from the date of receiving copy of this order till the date of payment. If the OP-2 & OP-3 fail to comply with the order within30 days from the date of receiving copy of this order, the complainant may approach this Forum u/s 25 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
10. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on this 3rd day of April, 2019.
BARIQ AHMED USHA KHANNA M.K. GUPTA
(MEMBER) (MEMBER) (PRESIDENT)
CC No.82/2018 Page 7 of 7
