West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/143/2017

Shri K. Krishna Murty - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Case Executive, LENOVO India Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sudipta Chatterjee

27 Feb 2018

ORDER

Order no.14                                                                                   Dated: 27/02/2018

 

              Record is put up before us for passing order.

              This hearing arises out of a consumer complaint, filed by Sri K. Krishna Murty against the O.P-Lenovo India Pvt. Ltd.  & seller, alleging defects in goods and deficiency in service on their part.

             Case of the complainant in brief is as follows : -

The complainant purchased a Lenovo K6 Note Smart phone on 28/01/2017 from O.P. no.2, the seller of the mobile phones, at a consideration of Rs.13,700/-. It is stated by the complainant that the said  mobile set had charging problem and he informed the O.P. no.2 within warranty period about the said defects of his  mobile set and requested him to repair that set or to replace by  defect free new one but the O.p. no.2 remained silent. It is further stated by the complainant that he informed the said matter to Lenovo India Pvt. Ltd. the O.P. no.1, who admitted his allegation about the problem of his mobile set but did not do anything.  Finding no way the complainant sent legal notice dated 24/06/2017 through his Ld. Lawyer, requesting the O.Ps. to replace the defective mobile set by defect free new one within the warranty period but all his requests were in vain. It is the specific allegation of the complainant that the O.Ps. were negligent to repair the mobile set or to replace the same which amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Accordingly the complainant has prayed for direction upon the O.Ps. to pay Rs.50,000/- towards compensation and to pay Rs.50,000/- towards litigation cost and to pass any other order  which may deem fit.

Registered notices were duly served upon the O.Ps. Inspite of that O.P. no.2 did not appear in this case. Hence the case was proceeded exparte against him vide order no.6 dated 16/11/2017. O.P. no.1 appeared and filed written version but on call he was found absent hence the case was proceeded exparte against him vide order no.12 dated 02/02/2018.

To prove his case, the complainant Sri K. Krishna Murty examined himself as PW-1 by tendering a written examination-in-chief and the documents filed by him, have been marked as exhibit 1 to 3 respectively.

In his evidence, PW-1, Sri K. Krishna Murty has fully corroborated the case of the petition of complaint in material particulars. Exhbit-2 is an e-mail letter dated 11/06/2017 which supports that he informed the said defects of his mobile set to the Lenovo India Pvt. Ltd. and exhibit-3  is an Advocate’s letter dated 24/06/2017 shows that he requested both the O.Ps. to repair or to replace the same within warranty period but inspite of that he as alleged, did not get any relief/service towards removing of the said defects by repairing or replacing the same by the O.Ps.  The allegation of non-availability of service has been substantiated by the complainant since the same is unrebutted as the O.Ps. prefer to remain absent from contesting this case. So in view of the oral evidence of PW-1, supported by exhibit 1 to 3, remaining unchallenged and uncontroverted, it is held that the complainant’s case is proved and he is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for.

It is evident from the documents on record that the O.P. nos. 1 & 2 neither removed the defects from the mobile set in question by repairing the same nor did took any step to replace the same by defect free new one and therefore, the O.Ps. are liable to refund the price of the said

                                                                                                                                                  Contd…………………P/2

                                                                                     ( 2 )

mobile hand set. Since the complainant paid the amount towards price of the said mobile hand set to the O.P. no.2, it is the O.P. no.2 who is liable to pay the said amount to the complainant.          

                                                Hence, it is,

                                                    Ordered,

                                                             that the complaint case no.143/2017  is allowed ex-parte against O.Ps. with cost.

                 O.P. no. 2 is directed to return the sale amount of  Rs.13,700/- of the mobile set in question to the complainant within a month from the date of this order.

                 O.P. no.1 and 2 are jointly and severally directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- towards compensation to the complainant for deficiency in service and to pay Rs.2,000/- towards litigation cost to the complainant within 1 month from this date of order failing which entire amount shall carry interest  @ 10% p.a. from the date of filing of this complaint till realization. 

                 Let plain copy of this order be given to the complainant free of cost.

                          Dictated and Corrected by me

                        

 

                                      Member                                       Member                                     President

                                                                                                                                         District Forum

                                                                                                                                      Paschim Medinipur