Complaint filed on: 08.09.2016
Complaint Disposed on:09.03.2017
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AT CHICKMAGALUR.
COMPLAINT NO.96/2016
DATED THIS THE 09th DAY OF MARCH 2017
:PRESENT:
HON’BLE SRI RAVISHANKAR, B.A.L, LL.B., - PRESIDENT
HON’BLE SMT B.U.GEETHA, M. COM., LL.B., -MEMBER
HON’BLE SMT H. MANJULA, B.A.L., LL.B., - MEMBER
COMPLAINANT:
Sri Ajeethkumar S.R S/o S.Ramachandra,
A/a 35 years, R/o Sri Laxmi Nilaya,
Broad way road,Vijayanagar Extension,
Chikmagalur.
(By Sri/Smt. N.R.Thejaswi, Advocate)
V/s
OPPONENT:
1. Sangeetha Mobiles Pvt. Ltd.,
No.16239/10097, Sri Lakshmi
Balaji Complex, M.G Road,
Chikmagalur.
Rep. by its authorized singatory.
2. Lenovo (India) Pvt. Ltd., Ferns
Icon, Level-2, Doddenakundi
Village, Marathahalli, Outerring
Road, K.R Pruma Hobli,
Bangalore-560037.
Rep. by its authorized singatory.
(OP No.1-exparte)
(OP No.2 By Sri/Smt. K.V.Omprakash, Advocate)
By Hon’ble President Sri. Ravishankar,
:O R D E R:
The complainant filed this complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 against OP Nos.1 & 2 alleging unfair trade practice in selling defective mobile hand set. Hence, prays for direction against OP Nos.1 & 2 to pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- towards loss along with compensation for unfair trade practice.
2. The brief facts of the complaint is that:
The complainant had purchased Lenovo mobile handset model No.A-536 on 10.10.2015 from Op no.1 by paying Rs.6,504/-, the said mobile handset was manufactured by Op no.2. Op no.1 had issued invoice dated:10.10.2015 vide no.SI/CKM/1772.
After purchase of the mobile handset complainant noticed that it is not working properly, immediately he handed over the said handset to Op no.1 for repair, but Op no.1 returned the handset without any repairs. Op no.1 also noticed the problem of sim slot in the mobile handset which was not working and also noticed problem in Wi-Fi and other not working in the handset, even inspite of handing over the mobile handset to repair, Op nos.1 & 2 failed to rectify the problem of the mobile handset. Hence, OP Nos.1 & 2 rendered unfair trade practice in selling defective handset.
The complainant had purchased the mobile handset for his daily communication and official use, due to manufacturing defect in the mobile handset complainant deprived of the use of mobile for daily communication. Hence OP Nos.1 & 2 are liable to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- towards loss suffered by complainant.
Further, complainant issued legal notice dated 16.03.2016 against OP Nos.1 & 2 and called upon them to return the amount paid towards mobile handset, even inspite of receipt of the legal notice OP Nos.1 & 2 failed to comply the notice, instead of that Op no.2 has issued reply untenably. Hence, complainant prays for direction against OP Nos.1 & 2 to pay Rs.25,000/- towards loss and another Rs.25,000/- compensation for unfair trade practice in the interest of justice and equity.
3. After service of notice Op no.1 not appeared before this forum, hence, Op no.1 placed exparte. Op no.2 appeared through his counsel and filed version and contended that there is no either deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of this Op. The handset sold to the complainant was repaired, which comes under the warranty at free of cost and also noticed that there is no any manufacturing defect in the mobile handset.
This Op always aims at customers satisfaction as its first priority and values relationship with its customers. On receipt of the complaint through customer care with respect to the mobile handset, dated 25.12.2015 with respect to the hanging and auto application issues the software of the mobile handset was upgraded and call was closed on the same day. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of this Op no.2.
Op no.2 further contended that complainant neither approached the authorized service centre nor raised any issue against his handset, hence, there is no issue with the handset after the software update and complainant without any valid reasons had unreasonably filed this complaint in order to gain wrongfully. The complainant had approached the authorized service centre only once, for which the said authorized service centre had provided service at free of cost and there after he approached the service centre after two months from the date of purchase for small software issue, the said problem was resolved by upgrading the software and service centre noticed that there is no any hardware issue in the mobile handset. Hence, the allegation of manufacturing defect in the mobile handset are all false, there is no cause of action arose in the complaint and prays for dismissal of the complaint.
4. Complainant filed affidavit and marked documents as Ex.P.1 to P.10 and mobile handset marked as M.O.1. Op No.2 also filed affidavit and filed memo with documents.
5. Heard the arguments.
6. In the proceedings, the following points do arise for our consideration and decision:
- Whether there is unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on the part of OPs.
- Whether complainant entitled for any relief & what Order?
7. Our findings on the above points are as follows:-
- Point No.1: Affirmative.
- Point No.2: As per Order below.
: R E A S O N S :
POINT NOs. 1 & 2:
8. There is no dispute that complainant had purchased Lenovo mobile handset from Op no.1 which was manufactured by Op no.2 on 10.10.2015 by paying Rs.6,504/-. There is also no dispute that after purchase of the mobile handset complainant was handed over the mobile handset to Op no.1 with a problem of not working of the sim slot, with respect to the problem complainant had produced invoice marked as Ex.P.1, where the Op no.1 has received the handset by endorsing the same, complainant also produced warranty marked as Ex.P.2 to 4 and also produced another endorsement given by Op no.1 with respect to the problem of Wi-Fi and other problems marked as Ex.P.5. The said allegations are admitted by Op no.2 and contended that the said problems were solved by updating the software of the mobile handset and contended that there is no any manufacturing defect in the mobile handset.
The complainant after not satisfying with the repair done by OP Nos.1 & 2 had issued a legal notice dated 16.03.2016 to OP Nos.1 & 2 marked as Ex.P.7, for which Op no.2 replied to the legal notice marked as Ex.P.9 and 10. The complainant also produced mobile handset before this forum for perusal. On observation of the mobile handset we observed the mobile handset was not working at the time of inspection. The learned advocate for Op vehemently argued that as soon as the complainant handed over the mobile handset with the problem of sim slot and Wi-Fi and other not working, the software of the mobile handset was upgraded and submits that the mobile handset working at present. But Ops have not made any attempts to establish that the mobile handset is in a working condition, even after upgrading the software the mobile handset is not working to the satisfaction of the complainant. Hence, we found there is a manufacture defect in the mobile handset and Op no.2 being a manufacturer is liable to replace the mobile handset with new one having no defects.
During course of trial, Op offered for replacement of the mobile handset, but complainant refused to settle the matter for the best reason known to him. Anyhow we are of the opinion that the mobile handset produced before this forum is to be replaced with new one and we found there is no reason to award any compensation as claimed by complainant. The complainant is entitled to get litigation expenses of Rs.1,000/- along with replacement of the mobile handset. As such for the above said reasons, we answer the above point no.1 and 2 in the Affirmative and proceed to pass the following:-
: O R D E R :
- The complaint filed by the complainant is partly allowed.
- OP Nos.1 & 2 are directed to replace the mobile handset with new one having no defects along with litigation expenses of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant.
- The OP No.1 & 2 are further directed to comply the above order within 30 days from the date of receipt/knowledge of the order, failing which the payable amount shall carry interest @ 9% P.A. till realization.
- Send free copies of this order to both the parties.
(Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed typed by her, transcript corrected by me and then pronounced in Open Court on this the 9th day of March 2017).
(B.U.GEETHA) (H. MANJULA) (RAVISHANKAR)
Member Member President
ANNEXURES
Documents produced on behalf of the complainant:
Ex.P.1 - Invoice for having purchase of the mobile handset dtd10.10.15
Ex.P.2 - Company warranty.
Ex.P.3 & 4 - Start guide and manual
Ex.P.5 - Endorsement issued by Op no.1
Ex.P.6 - Another endorsement issued by Op.
Ex.P.7 - Office copy of the legal notice
Ex.P.8 - Postal acknowledgment
Ex.P.9 - Reply to the legal notice issued by Op no.2
Ex.P.10 - Another reply dt:26.04.2016
M.O.1 - Lenovo A536 mobile handset.
Documents produced on behalf of the OPs:
NIL
Dated:09.03.2017 President
District Consumer Forum,
Chikmagalur.
RMA
