DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
MUCHIPARA, BURDWAN.
Consumer Complaint No 192 of 2015
Date of filing: 31.8.2015 Date of disposal: 08.02.2016
Complainant: Sumit Kumar Ghosh, S/o. Late Sudhir Chandra Ghosh, Village: Bagati, Post Office & Police Station: Mogra, District: Hooghly, PIN – 712 148.
-V E R S U S-
Opposite Party: 1. Saluja Automobiles, represented by Proprietor, 4 No. Municipal Complex, G. T. Road, Burdwan, West Bengal- 723 101, Police Station: Burdwan.
2. Lenovo Service Centre, represented by Service Head, IT Campus, 45/1, Khaluibill Math, 1st Lane, Near Omkar Nath Ashram, Bardhaman, West Bengal – 713 101, Police Station: Burdwan.
3. Lenovo India Pvt. Ltd., Represented by Channel Sales Manager, Apeejay Business Centre, Apeejay House, Block –A, 8th Floor, 15, Park Street, Kolkata – 700 016, Police Station: Park Street.
Present: Hon’ble President: Sri Asoke Kumar Mandal.
Hon’ble Member: Smt. Silpi Majumder.
Hon’ble Member: Sri Pankaj Kumar Sinha.
Appeared for the Complainant: In Person.
Appeared for the Opposite Party No. 1&2: Ld. Advocate, Shovan Kumar.
Appeared for the Opposite Party No. 3: Ld. Advocate, Anirban Mukherjee.
J U D G E M E N T
This complaint is filed by the complainant u/S. 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice against the ops as the ops did not return the mobile handset given to the service centre of the op-3 for its necessary repairing.
The brief fact of the case of the complainant is that he purchased one Lenovo Mobile from the op-1 on 18.6.2014. After few days since its purchase network problem started frequently and for this reason he discussed the matter with the op-1 who suggested him that if the SIM card is changed the problem will be solved. It was further suggested by the op-1 that problem may be network of its service. Accordingly the complainant changed the SIM card and after changing it the complainant inserted the said SIM card in another five to six mobiles and found no problem regarding network. Due to network problem the complainant handed over the mobile set to the op-2 for the first time on 23.4.2015 who returned the same on 09.5.2015 without taking any action as the same problem persisted. After detection of the said problem the complainant showed the same to the op-2 and handed over the said mobile set to the op-2 for the second time on 09.5.2015 and the op-2 returned the same to the complainant on 10.6.2015. But unfortunately the problem was not resolved by the op-2 and for this reason on 10.6.2015 the set was for the third time handed over to the op-2 for proper servicing. Thereafter the complainant made written correspondences with Lenovo Authorized Service centre - op-2 about the mobile handset and always he was intimated that his request was under progress, but till filing of this complaint the op-2 did not return the said mobile handset to him nor made any communication with him inspite of receipt of several e-mail on behalf of the complainant. As the complainant’s grievance have not been redressed by the ops, having no alternative the complainant has filed this complaint before this ld. Forum praying for direction upon the ops to refund the cost of the mobile handset to the tune of Rs. 14,900=00 or replace the said set with a new defect-free one without taking any extra cost, compensation to the tune of Rs. 80,000=00 due to harassment, mental agony and litigation cost of Rs. 5,000=00.
The petition of complaint has been contested by the op-3 by filing written version stating that this op is always working to the satisfaction of the customer and it is its first priority and it used to continue good relationship with its customers. The instant complaint filed by the complainant is devoid of any merits because there was no problem in the questioned mobile handset and, if any, the problem was resolved by the op-2 successfully. Admittedly three complaints were lodged by the complainant with the op-2 for necessary repairing of his mobile handset. Repairing was made successfully and being satisfied with the service of the ops the complainant was handed over the said mobile handset. It is contended by the op-3 that after ten months from its purchase the complainant for the first time lodged a complaint regarding network problem on 23.4.2015 and after removal of the said defect the handset was handed over to him. According to the op-3 as the complainant used the said mobile for long ten months from its purchase hence it is an admitted fact that there is no manufacturing defect in the handset. On 09.5.2015 the complainant lodged second complaint with the op-2 – Authorized Service Centre of this op and the problem was resolved by upgrading the software and the mobile handset was handed over to the complainant to his satisfaction with good functioning on 04.6.2015. On 10.6.2015 third complaint was lodged by the complainant for the Printed Circuit Board (PCB) and on that occasion also the issue was resolved by replacing the PCB and the set was returned on 27.6.2015 free of cost. Be it mentioned that during third occasion there was no warranty of the said handset as in the meantime the same had expired. But showing its good gesture the op-2 repaired the mobile handset free of cost. So as there was no deficiency in service on the part of the op-2 and the ops, this complaint has been filed by the complainant with mal-intention and with a view to grab some relief from this ld. Forum through an illegal manner. According to the op-3 this is a fit case for dismissal as the complainant is not at all entitled to get any relief.
After admission of this complaint notices were issued upon the ops separately on 05.10.2015. The op-1 appeared by filing vokalatnama and prayed time for filing written version. Prayer was allowed to the op-1 and as the op-2 &3 did not appear on that date inspite of receipt of notice complaint was fixed for hearing ex parte against the op-2&3. On 09.12.2015 op-2 & 3 filed separate vokalatnamas and on that date also op-1 prayed time for filing written version. On 09.02.2015 op-3 by filing an application prayed for setting aside the ex parte order. On 21.12.2015 the said prayer was allowed and written version accepted from the op-3 but since 09.12.2015 neither the op-1 nor the op-2 appeared before this ld. Forum and the said ops chose not to contest the petition of complaint either orally or by filing written version.
We have carefully perused the entire record and the document filed by the parties and heard argument advanced by the ld. Counsel for the complainant and the op-3. Be it mentioned on the date of hearing the op-1&2 were not present. It is seen by us that admittedly the complainant purchased one Lenovo Mobile handset from the op-1 on 18.6.2014, the cost of the said set was for Rs. 14,900=00, there was warranty for one year for the said handset, the op-2 is the Authorized Service Centre of the op-3 and the op-1 is the Authorized Dealer of the op-3, the complainant lodged three complaints on different three occasions due to some problem in the said mobile handset with the op-2 being the Authorized Service Centre of the op-3, on first two occasions though the handset was returned to him by the op-2 without removing the problem as alleged, but on the third time the op-2 did not return the said mobile handset to him. The allegation of the complainant is that he submitted the said mobile handset to the op-2 due to some problem, but the said mobile handset did not return by the op-2 as yet with removing the problem or without removing the same. The contention of the op-3 is that after necessary repairing on the third occasion the said handset was returned to the complainant and on every occasion the complainant being satisfied received the said mobile handset. But we have noticed that in support of such contention the op-3 has miserably failed to adduce any cogent documentary evidence in this complaint to prove that the complainant received the said mobile handset from the op-2 on every occasion being satisfied. Therefore, the crux of the complaint is very short i.e. whether the complainant received the said mobile handset from the op-2 on the third occasion or not. The documentary evidence filed by the parties reveal that the op-2 received the said mobile handset form the complainant as he lodged complaint against the said set. But there is no iota of evidence that the complainant received the said mobile handset from the op-2 after its necessary repairing being satisfied. The documentary evidence as filed by the ops there is no signature of the complainant, therefore it is very difficult to hold that on the third occasion after submitting the mobile handset to the op-2 the complainant received the same by putting endorsement on the paper either being satisfied or dissatisfied and/or either repaired or without repairing. The document shows that admittedly the complainant submitted the mobile handset on the third occasion for its necessary repairing but no document is forthcoming to show that the complainant received the said mobile handset from the op-2. Admittedly, the complainant did not submit the said mobile handset before the op-3, but as the op-3 is the principal of the op-1&2, hence entire liability casts upon the shoulder of the op-3 due to deficiency of its agents. We are inclined to mention that as the op-2 did not return the said mobile handset to the complainant the complainant made several written correspondences through e-mail on several dates and every time assurance was given to him to resolve his matter/dispute within 48 hours, but unfortunately the problem of the complainant had not yet been resolved till approaching before the court of law. Therefore, in our opinion the action and activities of the ops are suffering from deficiency in service and for this reason the complainant had to rush pillar to post for redressal of his grievance and ultimately filed this complaint. Due to deficiency in service the op-3 being the principal is liable for making payment of compensation to the complainant and as by filing this complaint the complainant had incurred some expenses, the op-3 shall pay some litigation cost to him.
Going by the foregoing discussion, hence, it is
O r d e r e d
that the complaint is allowed on contest against the op-3 and ex parte against the op-1&2. Op-3 is directed either to return a new, defect-free and similar mobile handset to the complainant without charging any extra cost or to refund the actual cost of the said mobile handset to the tune of Rs. 14,900=00 (Rs. Fourteen thousand and nine hundred) only along with interest @6% (six per cent) per annum from the date of its purchase till entire realization of the said amount within a period of 45 (forty five) days, in default, the decreetal amount shall carry interest @10% (ten per cent) per annum for the default period. Op-3 is also directed for making payment of compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,000=00 (Rs. One thousand) only to the complainant due to harassment, mental agony and litigation cost of Rs. 500=00 (Rs. Five hundred) only within a period of 45 (forty five) days from the date of passing of this judgment, in default, the complainant is at liberty to put the entire order in execution as per provisions of law.
Let plain copies of this final order/judgment be supplied to the parties free of cost as per provisions of Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
(Asoke Kumar Mandal)
Dictated and corrected by me. President
DCDRF, Burdwan
(Silpi Majumder)
Member
DCDRF, Burdwan
(Pankaj Kumar Sinha) (Silpi Majumder)
Member Member
DCDRF, Burdwan DCDRF, Burdwan
