D.o.O:30/6/2017
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUMIDDUKKI
CC.NO.167/15
Dated this, the 30th day of June 2017
PRESENT:
SRI.S.GOPAKUMAR : PRESIDENT
SRI.BENNY.K. : MEMBER
Jijimon. P.R, New Tech Electronics
Thodupuzha,Po Thodupuzha. : Complainant
(Adv.K.M.Sanu)
1.Manager, OXYGEN The Digital Shop
Akshya Building, Muvattupuzha Road, Thodupuzha. : Opposite parties
(Adv.Able C.Kurian)
2. Manager, Lenovo India Pvt.Ltd
Marathhally Po.K.R Puram,Hubly,
Bangalore -560037
(Adv.Vinish.P.Lukose)
ORDER
SRI.S.GOPAKUMAR : PRESIDENT
Complainant purchased a Lenova A 369 I model mobile phone from 1st opposite party shop on 17/5/14 by paying an amount of Rs.6300/-. At the time of purchase 1st opposite party made the complainant believe that the phone is having one year warranty, long lasting and high performance. Believing the words of 1st opposite party complainant happened to purchase the phone manufactured by 2nd opposite party. Within 2 months of purchase the phone showed complaint in touching and when the sim inserts the phone switched off automatically. Immediately the complainant entrusted the phone to 1st opposite party and 1st opposite party returned the phone after curing the defects free of cost within some days. Thereafter the complaint repeated 4 times. At last on 24/4/15 the complaint repeated and the phone is entrusted to the 1st opposite party. Now also the phone is in the custody of 1st opposite party. From the date of purchase itself complainant cannot used the phone, almost all days the phone is within the custody of 1st opposite party for repairing. Since the defect of the phone is inherent, complainant demanded for replace and return the price so many times but the 1st opposite party not turned up. Being a business man, mobile phone is an inevitable for his business. This defective phone caused much mental agony and financial loss to the complainant. Hence the complainant approached the Forum and filed the complaint alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice against the opposite parties and prays for the reliefs such as to direct the 1st opposite party to return the purchase price of the phone and also to direct them to pay an amount of Rs.5000/- as compensation and Rs.3000/- as cost.
On notice 1st opposite party entered appearance and filed detailed version. In their version 1st opposite party contended that the warranty and other assurance in relation to the mobile phone was offered by the manufacturing company. Further stated that, the opposite party is not technically competent to analysis and cure those defects, the opposite party had taken the phone from the complainant informing him that this phone will be handed over to the authorized service centre of manufacturing company “Lenovo” National Electronic Thodupuzha. As far as the opposite party is concerned , the opposite party merely sells mobile phone manufactured by various companies for a meager profit and apparently it is clear from the warranty card given to the manufacturing company that the responsibility to take care of any manufacturing complaint found with there. Hence there is no deficiency in service from the part of the 1st opposite party.
2nd opposite party in their written version contended that whenever the complainant approached the opposite parties alleging complaints, all the times the complaints were cured free of cost. Moreover there is no manufacturing defects to the product manufactured by the 2nd opposite party. Complainant not produced any expert evidence and all the complaints alleged to have happened was only trivial in nature , and there is no allegation that the complainant had suffered any loss. In this case there is no allegation or material facts placed on record to show negligence from the part of this opposite parties. 2nd opposite party further contended that the opposite party’s authorized service centre is unable to repair or replace the parts of the respective machine, refund will be provided as per the terms of the Lenovo warranty clause. Then under Lenovo statement of limited warranty, it states that” if the service provider determine that it is unable to either repair or replace your product, your sole remedy under this limited warranty is to return the product to your place to purchase or to Lenovo for a refund of your purchase price. In this case , the mobile which was having issues was repaired and resolved by replacing the respective parts under terms and conditions of warranty. Hence there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the opposite party.
Complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts.P1 and P2 were marked. Ext.P1 is the cash bill dated 17/5/14 and warranty card . Ext.P2 is the Job card. From the defense side no oral or documentary evidence adduced.
Heard both side.
We have carefully gone through the documents and point of argument by learned counsel for both the parties. On perusal of records and by going through the pleadings of both sides, the Forum convinced that the mobile phone discussed above is having some inherent manufacturing defect. It is evident from Ext.P2. Ext.P2 is the goods inward note prepared and issued by the 1st opposite party, the authorized dealer of 2nd opposite party. It is specifically stated in this receipt that, when sim inserts phone automatically switched off and it repeated 4 times. The job card is prepared on 24/4/15. From Ext.P1 tax invoice and warranty card, we can see that the phone is purchased from 1st opposite party on 17/ 4/2014 , and having one year warranty offered by the manufacturer. It is also admitted that , the phone is under the custody of its authorized service center still and it is not challenged .
In view of the above facts , we the Forum is of the considered view that, the defects of the phone is established by the complainant and the manufacture is liable to compensate to the complainant as per the terms and conditions of this warranty as admitted by the manufacturer in para 16 of their written version.
It is also taken into consideration that, the 1st opposite party extended their services to the complainant without any default, and there is no deficiency in service is happened from their part.
Hence the complaint is allowed. 2nd opposite party is directed to repay an amount of Rs.6000/- being the cost of the mobile phone and also direct to pay an amount of Rs.2000/- as cost of the proceedings to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order . Failing which the amount shall carry interest at 12% per annum from the date of default till realization.
Pronounced in the open forum on this 30th day of June 2017
Sd/
SRI.S.GOPAKUMAR : PRESIDENT
Sd/
SRI.BENNY.K :MEMBER
Exts.
P1- Tax invoice and warranty card
P2- Goods inward note
PW1-Jiji Mon –complainant
eva
/Forwarded by Order/
