Karnataka

Chitradurga

CC/9/2017

Sri Basvaraj S/o P.G.Parameshwarappa - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Authorized Signatory,Flipkart Services - Opp.Party(s)

Sri.C.J.Lakshminarsimha

15 Jul 2017

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED ON:24.01.2017

DISPOSED      ON:15.07.2017

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHITRADURGA.

 

CC.NO: 9/2017

 

DATED:  15^th JULY 2017

PRESENT: - SRI. T.N. SREENIVASAIAH  : PRESIDENT                                   B.A., LL.B.,

                   SRI.N. THIPPESWAMY        :MEMBER

                                 B.A., LL.B.,   

 

……COMPLAINANT	Basavaraj, S/o P.G. Parameshwarappa, Age:  42 Years, Gurukrupa, Near Krishna Nursing Home, New Jain Temple Road, Chitradurga.      (Rep by Sri.C.J. Lakshminarasimha, Advocate)
V/S
…..OPPOSITE PARTIES	1. The Authorized Signatory, Flipkart Services, Shreyash Retail Pvt. Ltd., SND Warehouse, Shed No.Cl.Door No.4/195, Redhills-Ambattur Road, Puzhal Village, Chennai, Tamil Nadu-600062, INDIA.    2. The Authorized Signatory, Authorized Lenovo Mobile Service Centre, N.R. Marketing, N.B. Muslim Hostel Complex, KEB Circle, Davanagere.   3. The Authorized Signatory, Authorized Lenovo Mobile Service Centre, Cell Solution (KAR), No.215/11, II Floor, Nadiga Plaza, 3rd Main, 5th Cross, P.J. Extension, Davanagere.   4. The Authorized Signatory, Customer Complaints, Lenovo India Pvt. Ltd., Ferns Icon, Level-2, Doddenakund village, Marathalli Outer Ring Road, Marathalli Post, K.R. Puram Hobali, Bangalore-560037.   (In person)

ORDER

SRI. T.N. SREENIVASAIAH:   PRESIDENT

The above complaint has been filed by the complainant u/Sec.12 of the C.P Act, 1986 for the relief to direct the OPs to return the Lenovo Mobile Hand Set or refund the amount of Rs.11,999/- along with interest @ 2% p.m from the date of complaint till realization, Rs.40,000/- towards mental agony/sufferings and Rs.15,000/- towards legal notice charges in all Rs66,999/- and such other reliefs.

2.     The brief facts of the case of the above complainant are that, the OP No.1 is the Sellers for Lenovo Vibe K 5 Note Mobile Handsets through Flipkart, OP No.2 and 3 are the authorized service centers for Lenovo Mobile Handsets and OP No.4 is the authorized person for Lenovo Company Handsets manufacturing units with customer services.  All the OPs are well aware that the complainant has purchased one Lenovo Vibe K 5 Note Mobile handset bearing its No.861808033933734 on 07.10.2016 for Rs.11,999/- from the OP No.1.  On 06.10.2016 the complainant ordered for purchase of Lenovo mobile Handset with OP No.1 and on 07.10.2016 the OP No.1 sent the same to the complainant, the same is nothing but the billing and shipping address of the said handset.  At the time of purchase of the said handset the OP No.1 has given a warranty for the said mobile handset for a period of one year from the date of purchase as per the norms and conditions of the above handset and undertake to rectify and repair the above handset if any problem arises or if any damages arises or any manufacturing defects found in the handset during the warranty period.  On the assurance given by the OPs the complainant purchased the handset from the OP No.1.  After purchase of the handset, the complainant used the said handset for a period of 1-2 months, then it was not in proper working condition and also there is no functioning properly, failure of connectivity, failure of sim detection, failure of identifying the network, mic is not working clearly, no outgoing audio, speaker is not working clearly and other unexplained problems in the handset is found, the touch screen is also not properly working and the said handset is again and again hanging.  Then the complainant informed the OP No.1 immediately for getting of the repair or replacing of the same since the complainant has purchased the same with the OP No.1.  But, in turn the OP No.1 have directed the complainant to approach the OP No.2 and 3 for which the complainant approached them for rectification of the problems found in the handset.  The OP No.2 has received the handset for repair in the month of November 2016.  After taking the said handset, he had partly repaired and the same has been handed over to the complainant.  The complainant used the same and observed that the above said problems are still continued in the handset.  Again the complainant handed over the said handset for repair to OP No.3 in the month of December 2016 and he got repaired partly and handed over the same the complainant.  After using the same by the complainant, the same problems repeated in the handset.  Finally, the complainant has sent the notices to the OP No.1 for refund of entire sale consideration amount and compensation by taking the defective mobile which was supplied by the OP No.1.  The complainant is facing the problems in the handset since from the date of purchase.  But, OP No.2 and 3 have not attended, cured and rectified the above said major problems found in the handset, for which the complainant fed up with the attitudes and negligence of OPs 1 to 3 though there is a clear warranty for the said handset for a period of one year from the date of purchase.  OP No.1 to 3 have not taken any proper steps for replacement or repair of the said mobile handset till this day, for which the OP No.4 is having clear knowledge of the same.  The defects/problems found in the mobile hand set are purely appears to be a manufacturing defects as per the information given by OP Nos. 1 to 3.  The complainant is doing business and the usage of mobile is very necessary and required to the above said profession, he is required the use of the mobile for his day to day affairs and also for his personal work.  Due to the negligent/defective service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs, the complainant has suffered mental agony, inconvenience in his day to day works and the complainant has also suffered huge financial loss. The repeated requests and demands made by the complainant for getting repair of the mobile or replacement of the said handset went in vain.  The OPs 1 to 3 have orally directed the complainant to ask the OP No.4 for refund of entire sale consideration.  The complainant issued notices to the OPs 1 to 3 through mail calling upon them to refund the price of the handset but, even they have neither replied to the said notices properly nor complied the terms of the said notices till this day.  The cause of action arisen for filing the complaint at Chitradurga when the OP No.1 has sold and supplied the defective mobile handset to the complainant and the OPs have not acted upon the warrantee conditions, which is a deficiency of service therefore, prayed for allowing the complaint.  

 3.    On service of notices, one Sri.Arunkumar. T, Proprietor of OPs 2 and 3 appeared but, failed to file version to lead his case. 

 4.    Complainant has examined as PW-1 by filing affidavit evidence and the documents Ex.A-1got marked.

5.     Arguments heard. 

6.     Now the points that arise for our consideration for decision of above complaint are that;

(1)  Whether the complainant proves that the OPs have committed deficiency of service and entitled for the reliefs as prayed for in the above complaint?

              (2) What order?

        7.     Our findings on the above points are as follows:-

        Point No.1:- Partly in Affirmative.

        Point No.2:- As per final order.

REASONS

8.     It is not in dispute that, on 06.10.2016 the complainant ordered for purchase of Lenovo Vibe K 5 Note Mobile handset bearing No.861808033933734 with OP No.1 and on 07.10.2016 the OP No.1 sent the same to the complainant.  Complainant has purchased the same for Rs.11,999/- from the OP No.1.  At the time of purchase of the said handset the OP No.1 has given a warranty for a period of one year from the date of purchase and undertakes to rectify and repair the above handset if any problem arises or if any damages arises or any manufacturing defects found in the handset during the warranty period.  On the assurance given by the OPs the complainant purchased the handset from the OP No.1.  After purchase of the handset within 1-2 months, it was not working properly that is not functioning properly, failure of connectivity, failure of sim detection, failure of identifying the network, mic is not working clearly, no outgoing audio, speaker is not working clearly and other unexplained problems in the handset, the touch screen is also not properly working and the said handset is again and again hanging.  The complainant informed the OP No.1 immediately for getting repair or replacing of the same since the complainant has purchased the same with the OP No.1.  But, in turn the OP No.1 has directed the complainant to approach the OP No.2 and 3 for which the complainant approached them for rectification of the problems found in the handset.  The OP No.2 has received the handset for repair in the month of November 2016, he had partly repaired and handed over to the complainant.  But, the complainant used the same and observed that, the above said problems are continued in the handset.  Again the complainant handed over the said handset for repair to OP No.3 in the month of December 2016 and he got repaired and handed over the same the complainant.  But, the same problems repeated in the handset.  Finally, the complainant sent the notices to the OP No.1 for refund of entire sale consideration amount and compensation by taking the defective mobile which was supplied by the OP No.1.  The complainant is facing the problems in the handset since from the date of purchase.  But, OP No.2 and 3 have not attended, cured and rectified the above said major problems found in the handset, for which the complainant fed up with the attitudes and negligence of OPs 1 to 3 though there is a clear warranty for the said handset for a period of one year from the date of purchase.  OP No.1 to 3 have not taken any proper steps for replacement or repair of the said mobile handset, for which the OP No.4 is having clear knowledge of the same.  The defects/problems found in the mobile hand set are purely appears to be a manufacturing defects as per the information given by OP Nos. 1 to 3.  Due to the negligent/defective service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs, the complainant has suffered mental agony, inconvenience in his day to day works and also huge financial loss. Inspite of repeated requests and demands made by the complainant for getting repair of the mobile or replacement of the said handset which went in vain.     

9.     In support of his contention, the complainant has filed his affidavit evidence and reiterated the contents of complaint and relied on document i.e., e-mail copy of Tax Invoice dated 06.10.2016 marked as Ex.A-1, which shows the complainant has purchased Lenovo Mobile Handset from the OP No.1 for Rs.11,999/-.      

10.   On hearing the contention of complainant and on perusal of the document including the affidavit, it clearly made out from the Ex.A-1 that, the complainant has paid Rs.11,999/- for purchasing the mobile handset from the OPs.  After using the said mobile handset for few days, some defects found in the said handset.  The complainant approached the OPs for rectifying the same.  The OPs repaired the same but, the same problems repeats again and again.  Finally the OPs have failed to rectify the defects found in the handset.  Due to the defects in the handset, the complainant has suffered mentally and finally.  Due to selling of the defective mobile handset to the complainant, the complainant has suffered mental agony and financial loss, which cannot be compensated by the OPs unless on payment of compensation.  Therefore, we come to the conclusion that, there is a deficiency of service on the part of OPs.  Accordingly, this Point No.1 is held as partly affirmative to the complainant.

 

          11.     Point No.2:- As discussed on the above point and for the reasons stated therein we pass the following:-

ORDER

The complaint filed by the complainant U/s 12 of CP Act 1986 is partly allowed.

It is ordered that, the OPs are hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.11,999/- to the complainant along with interest at the rate of 12% p.a from the date of complaint till realization.

It is further directed the OPs to pay Rs.25,000/- towards compensation and Rs.5,000/- towards cost of the proceedings to the complainant.

   The complainant is hereby directed to handover the defective mobile handset to the OPs after receiving the above said amount from the Ops. 

It is further ordered that, the OPs are hereby directed to comply the above order within 30 days from the date of this order.

            (This order is made with the consent of Member after the correction of the draft on 15/07/2017 and it is pronounced in the open Court after our signatures)         

                                     

 MEMBER                                                   PRESIDENT

-:ANNEXURES:-

Witnesses examined on behalf of Complainant:

PW-1:  Complainant by way of affidavit evidence.

Witnesses examined on behalf of OPs:

-Nil-

Documents marked on behalf of Complainants:

01

Ex-A-1:-

Tax Invoice dated 06.10.2016

 

Documents marked on behalf of OPs:

-Nil-

 

MEMBER                                                            PRESIDENT

Rhr**