Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/230/2015

M/s.S.Mohan - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, Lenova India Pvt Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

T.Vijayalakshmi

16 Nov 2018

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing  : 20.05.2015

                                                                          Date of Order : 16.11.2018

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 3.

 

PRESENT: THIRU. M. MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B, M.L.                    : PRESIDENT

                 TMT. K. AMALA, M.A., L.L.B.                                : MEMBER-I

 

C.C. No.230/2015

DATED THIS FRIDAY THE 16^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018

                                 

S. Mohan,

S/o. Mr. Subramaniam,

Ashirwad Apartments,

No.6/1, Postal Colony, 3^rd Street,

West Mambalam,

Chennai – 600 033.                                                        .. Complainant.                                             

 

          ..Versus..

 

1. The Manager,

Lenovo (India) Private Limited,

Fems Icon, Level 2,

Doddanakundi Village,

Marthahalli Outer Ring Road,

K.R. Puram,

Hobli,

Bangalore – 560 037,

Karnataka.

 

2. The Manager,

Lenovo (India) Private Limited,

2^nd Floor, Kuppu Archade,

No.4, Venkatanarayana Road,

T. Nagar,

Chennai – 600 017.                                                 ..  Opposite parties.

          

Counsel for complainant        :  Mrs. T. Vijayalakshmi

Counsel for opposite parties  :  M/s. Conscientia Law Associates & 

                                                   others

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

       This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying to refund a sum of Rs.11,500/- towards the cost of complainant’s mobile and to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony to the complainant.

1.    The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:-

The complainant submits that he purchased ‘Lenovo’ Mobile Model No.S-660 P/N- Colour Titanium on 05.08.2014 through online merchant ‘Flipkart .com’ vide Invoice No.ID/TTL/R1/4520 from the 1^st opposite party for a sum of Rs.11,500/-.   The complainant submits that right from the beginning most of the time, the said mobile phone was not working, not responsive and screen automatically went blank.   Hence the complainant brought it to the notice of the online seller namely ‘Flipkart.com’ at Bangalore. The complainant submits that the online seller advised the complainant to take the matter to the 1^st opposite party at Bangalore and Chennai as they are manufacturer of the said mobile phone.   In spite of several attempts, the opposite parties did not evince any interest to rectify the defects.   The complainant submits that without any other option the complainant sent a registered letter dated:21.12.2014 claiming replacement of the mobile phone.   The complainant submits that in response to their Interim reply dated:18.01.2015 and further communication dated:14.02.2015 on behalf of the 1^st opposite party, a detailed reply was sent as well mail was addressed to them providing IMEI No. and the copy of the invoice etc by letter dated:19.02.2015 and there was no response from the opposite party.  The act of the opposite parties caused great mental agony.  Hence the complaint is filed.

2.      The brief averments in the written version filed by the  opposite parties is as follows:

The opposite parties specifically deny each and every allegations made in the complaint and puts the complainant to strict proof of the same.    The opposite parties state that the complainant purchased the mobile phone through online merchant ‘Flipkart .com’.    The opposite parties state that the allegation of defective nature of the handset has not been intimated to this opposite party or surrendered the mobile phone for due repair.  After hearing from the ‘Flipkart’, this opposite party sent an e-mail with details of service that the complainant had never approached any of the authorized service center to get his handset repaired.  Without surrendering the handset, claiming replacement or refund of the value of the handset cannot be permitted.   The opposite parties state that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties who is the manufacturer.   Therefore there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and the complaint has to be dismissed.

3.     To prove the averments in the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A9 are marked.  Proof affidavit of the opposite parties is filed and documents Ex.B1 & Ex.B2 are marked on the side of the opposite parties. 

4.      The points for consideration is:-

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to get refund of a sum of Rs.11,500/- as prayed for?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony as prayed for?

5.      On point:-

Both parties filed their respective written arguments.  Heard the opposite parties Counsel also.  Perused the records namely the complaint, written version, proof affidavits and documents.  The complainant pleaded and contended that he purchased ‘Lenovo’ Mobile Model No.S-660 P/N- Colour Titanium on 05.08.2014 through online merchant ‘Flipkart.com’ vide Invoice No.ID/TTL/R1/4520 from the 1^st opposite party as per Ex.A1 for a sum of Rs.11,500/-.   Further the contention of the complainant is that right from the beginning most of the time, the said mobile phone was not working, not responsive and screen automatically went blank.   Hence the complainant brought it to the notice of the online seller namely flipcart.com in turn to the opposite party.   But the complainant has not filed any document to prove such defective nature of the mobile phone.   Further the contention of the complainant is that online seller advised the complainant to take the matter to the 1^st opposite party at Bangalore and Chennai as they are the  manufacturers of the said mobile phone.   In spite of several attempts, the opposite parties did not evince any interest to rectify the defects.   But on a careful perusal of records, it is seen that the complainant has not surrendered the mobile phone to the 1^st opposite party for repair.  Further the contention of the complainant is that without any other option the complainant sent a registered letter dated:21.12.2014 as per Ex.A2 claiming replacement of the mobile phone without surrendering the mobile phone and disclosing the real defective nature of the mobile phone establishes that the complainant is using the mobile phone without any difficulty.   Further the contention of the complainant is that the allegation of the claim regarding the IMEI Number and all other details regarding the mobile phone has no relevance to this case in the absence of any documents.

6.     The learned Counsel for the opposite parties would contend that the complainant purchased the mobile phone through online merchant ‘Flipkart .com’ proves that he is well aware of the net transactions.  Further the contention of the opposite parties is that the allegation of defective nature of the handset has not been intimated to this opposite parties or surrendered the mobile phone for due repair.  After hearing from the ‘Flipkart’, this opposite parties sent an e-mail with details of service that the complainant had never approached any of the authorized service center to get his handset repaired.  Without surrendering the handset, claiming replacement or refund of the value of the handset cannot be permitted.  Further the contention of the opposite parties is that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties who are the manufacturer.   Evenafter knowing fully well the details regarding the service providers and non-surrendering of mobile handset to diagnose the defect in the handset refund of cost of the mobile phone cannot be allowed.  Considering the facts and circumstances of the case this Forum is of the considered view that the complaint has to be dismissed.

In the result, this complaint is dismissed.  No costs.

Dictated  by the President to the Steno-typist, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 16^th day of November 2018. 

 

MEMBER –I                                                                      PRESIDENT

COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:

Ex.A1	05.08.2014	Copy of invoice ref.TTK/R1/4520
Ex.A2	21.12.2014	Copy of notice issued to the 1st opposite party by the complainant
Ex.A3	18.01.2015	Copy of Interim reply ref No.LN/MP/Q4/14-15/058 of the 1st opposite party’s Counsel
Ex.A4	14.02.2015	Copy of letter received from the 1st opposite party’s Counsel
Ex.A5	19.02.2015	Copy of letter by the complainant
Ex.A6	11.03.2015	Copy of letter received from the 1st opposite party’s Counsel
Ex.A7	19.03.2015	Copy of letter by the complainant to the 1st opposite party’s Counsel
Ex.A8	10.04.2015	Copy of letter received from the 1st opposite party’s Counsel
Ex.A9	05.05.2015	Copy of letter by the complainant to the 2nd opposite party’s

 

OPPOSITE  PARTIES SIDE DOCUMENTS:-

Ex.B1		Copy of Board Resolution
Ex.B2		Copy of Terms of warranty / Service contract

 

 

 

MEMBER –I                                                                      PRESIDENT