Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.

                                                          Complaint No. : 307.

                                                          Instituted on     : 18.05.2017.

                                                          Decided on       : 03.07.2018.

Nikit s/o Kulbir Singh R/o H.No.316 Vishal Nagar, Near New Bus Stand, Rohtak.

                                                          ………..Complainant.

                             Vs.

1. Lenovo India Pvt. Ltd., Vatlka Business Park, 1^st Floor, Badshahpur Road, Sector-49, Sohna Road, Gurgaon through its Director/Manager.
2. Shri Hari Computer Solutions HUDA Complex, Rohtak through its Manager.

                                                          ……….Opposite parties.

          COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.

BEFORE:  SH.RAJBIR SINGH DAHIYA, PRESIDENT.

                   SH.VED PAL, MEMBER.

Present:       Sh.Ashok Kadian, Advocate for complainant.

                   Sh.Rajpal for opposite party No.1 in person.

                   Opposite party no.2 already exparte.

                                      ORDER

RAJBIR SINGH DAHIYA, PRESIDENT:

1.                          The present complaint has been filed by the complainant with the averments that he had purchased a Lenovo Vibe P1 mobile phone online on 30.03.2016 from Flipkart for a sum of Rs.15000/-. That just after few months it started creating problem, due to which the complainant could not use the said mobile phone. That complainant deposited his mobile with opposite party No.2 on 25.03.2017 but despite his repeated visits, it was told that part was not available and till date, mobile has not been repaired by the opposite parties. Hence this complaint and the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite parties to refund the cost of mobile phone alongwith interest, compensation and  litigation expenses.

2.                          After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Notice sent to O.P No.2 received back duly served but  none appeared on behalf of OP No.2. As such OP No.2 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 12.07.2017 of this Forum. Opposite party No.1 in its reply has submitted that complainant contacted the opposite party after 11 months from the date of purchase. Therefore the smartphone in question is not defective or has manufacturing defect. That after receiving the required parts, mobile phone was repaired and complainant was informed but he has not taken the delivery of phone despite repeated reminders. That there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and dismissal of complaint has been sought.

3.                          Ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C7 and closed his evidence. Ld. counsel for OP No.1 made a statement that reply already filed be read in evidence.

4.                          We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.

5.                          After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that the mobile set was purchased by the complainant on dated 30.03.2016 and the defect appeared within warranty period but the mobile set is not repaired by the opposite parties despite his repeated requests. Complainant also sent a legal notice Ex.C4 to the OPs which was duly served but no reply was given by the OPs. The mobile in question is still in the possession of OPs. On the other hand, in the absence of any document, OP has failed to prove its contention that complainant has not collected the set despite their repeated reminders. Hence the same is negated.  Complainant is not satisfied with the services of the OPs and since he has lost faith in the product of company, it is better to refund the price of mobile phone. As such the complaint succeeds with refund of price of mobile in question alongwith interest and cost.

6.                          Accordingly it is directed that opposite party No.1 i.e. manufacturer shall refund the price of mobile phone i.e. Rs.15000/-(Rupees fifteen thousand only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 18.05.2017 till its realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation and  litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision. The mobile in question is already in the possession of service centre.

7.                         Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.      File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court:

03.07.2018.

                                                          ................................................

                                                          Rajbir Singh Dahiya, President

                                                          ..........................................

                                                          Ved Pal, Member.