CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,PALAKKAD

Dated this the 30^th day of June, 2016

PRESENT :  SMT. SHINY.P.R, PRESIDENT

               :  SMT. SUMA. K.P, MEMBER  

               :  SRI.V.P.ANANTHA NARAYANAN, MEMBER   Date  of filing : 21/05/2015

CC /74/2015

Safeena, D/o.Abdul Kader,

Padepurakkal House,                                       :        Complainant

Chimnikavu Road, Parli,

Palakkad District-678 612,

(Represented by the Power of Attorney)

Haneefa.P.S, S/o.P.A.Sulaiman,

Padepurakkal House,

Puliaparambu, Kodunthirapully,

Palakkad – 678 004

(By Adv.Manoj Ambat)     

                                                          Vs

1  Univer Cell,

    Door no.11/1157, NMR Complex,

    TB Road, Palakkad – 678 014                      :        Opposite parties

    (represented by the Showroom Manager)

    (Exparte)

2. Lenovo India Pvt. Ltd,

    Ferns Icon, Level-2,

    Doddenakund Village,

    Marathhalli Outer Ring Road,

    Marathhalli Post, KrPuram, Hubli,

    Bangalore – 560 037, Karnataka State,

   (Represented by the Managing Director)

    (By Adv.K.V.Deepu)

3. Lenovo Service Centre,

    Moobile Lab, Al-Fahad Arcade,

    Saba School Cross Road,

    Puthiyara, Calicut – 673 004,

    (represented by the Service Manager)

     (Exparte)

O R D E R

By Smt. Suma. K.P, Member,

The complainant bought a Lenovo Tablet (Model No.A1000, IMEI No-HGCOD126)  from the 1^st opposite party on 15/10/2013 for an amount of Rs.9,500/- which was manufactured by the 2^nd opposite party.  The complainant alleges that from the beginning itself there was constant problems with the tablet.  Soon after purchase, a problem crept up which was resolved by the opposite parties, but yet again after repairs, the system has not been functioning well.  The tablet again stopped functioning in the month of June 2014.  The main problem was that the tablet was constantly hanging while working.  The tablet was handed over to the 1^st opposite party for service work on 30/06/2014.  The issues reported in the work form is the auto select and auto running.  The same was forwarded to the 3^rd opposite party for repairs.  The same was not returned as on date.  After constant enquiry, the 1^st opposite party acknowledged the complainant that the complaint has not been rectified as per  letter dtd. 20/09/2014.  The complainant is a student who wholly depends on the tablet for her studies.  She finally approached the 1^st opposite party on 9/5/2015 wherein she was informed that the repair on the tablet has not been completed to date.  Due to the erratic functioning of the tablet, the complainant was put to great loss and difficulty.  There has been many times when even her studies was adversely affected due to the timely non availability of the tablet.  Just under 1 year of buying the tablet, the complainant alleges that the system is totally non functional most of the time and even at times when the system was working, it is far below even the expected minimum performance level in any product, comparable or otherwise.  The opposite parties has also failed to rectify the defect of the tablet despite keeping the same with them for more than 11 months.   Hence the complainant had approached before the Forum seeking redressal for the losses suffered due to the deficiency of service of the opposite parties.  The complainant is entitled to have the faulty tablet replaced by the opposite parties and the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to compensate the complainant.

Complaint was admitted and the notice was issued to the opposite parties for appearance.  Opposite parties 1 and 3 were absent even after accepting notice from this forum. Hence they were called absent and set exparte.  2^nd opposite party entered appearance through counsel and filed version stating the following contentions.  2^nd opposite party alleges that the complainant is silent regarding what are the defects to the tablet noted by the complainant.  Complaints, if any, are happened due to the negligent use of the same by the complainant.   If there was any complaint to the tablet the complainant should have approached any authorized service centre of the 2^nd opposite party.  Instead the complainant had entrusted the same with the dealer which is a violation of warranty.  The intention of the complainant is to get some unlawful gain from the opposite parties.  Hence the complaint has to be dismissed.

Complainant filed chief affidavit.  Opposite parties filed applications to cross examine the complainant. Power of attorney of the complainant was examined as PW1. Ext.A1-A3 was marked .  Opposite parties has not filed any affidavit.  Hence the evidence was closed.  Matter was heard.

The following issues are to be considered.

          1.   Whether there is any deficiency in service from the part of opposite

                parties?

          2.   If so, what are the reliefs and cost? 

 ISSUES 1 & 2

    We have perused the documents as well as affidavit filed by the complainant.  From Ext.A1 it is obvious the complainant has bought a Lenovo Tablet on 15/10/2013 issued by the 1^st opposite party in the name of the complainant.  Ext.A2  it is evident that the said tablet is under repair and the defects of the tablet  are also mentioned.  From Ext.A3 it is viewed that the 1^st opposite party has not returned the tablet after due repairs.  There is no contra evidence to disprove the allegations stated in the complaint.  Hence the complaint is allowed. 

The complainant states that being a student she has suffered irreparable losses and damages which has adversely affected the studies.   Hence we direct the opposite parties to replace the Lenovo Tablet (Model No.A1000, IMEI No-HGCOD126) with a brand new tablet and to pay Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand only) as damages for the losses and sufferings of the complainant due to the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties along with Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) as cost.   The aforesaid amount shall be paid  within one month from the date of receipt of this order failing which complainant is entitled to get 9% interest for the aforesaid amount from the date of order till realization. 

Pronounced in the open court on this the 30^th  day of June, 2016.

                                                                 Sd/-

                                                                    Shiny.P.R

                                                                     President

                                                                      Sd/-                                                                                                            Suma. K.P

                                                                       Member

                                                                             Sd/-

                                                              V.P.Anantha Narayanan

                                                                       Member

                                                A P P E N D I X

Exhibits marked on the side of complainant

Ext.A1- Tax invoice No.UKL:0531430  dt.15/10/2013  issued by the 1^st OP (Original)

Ext.A2- Service request form no.19804  issued by OP1 dtd.30/06/2014(Original).

Ext.A3 – Letter dtd.20/09/2014 (Original)

Exhibits marked on the side of opposite parties

Nil

Witness examined on the side of complainant

PW1- Haneefa.P.S  

Witness examined on the side of opposite parties

Nil

Cost Allowed

Rs.1,000/- as cost.