JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY
Sri B.S.KERI, MEMBER:
The complainant has filed this Complaint against the Opposite Party (herein after referred in short as OP) u/s 12 (2) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service against OPs.
Brief fact of the Case:
2. The brief fact of the case is that the Complainant had purchased the LENOVO A536 bearing IMEI No 866566025796312 color black mobile handset by paying Rs.6,800/- Including taxes the handset started giving problem like Keypad(Touch screen) not working hanging problem after 9months of purchase of handset and same was informed to OP No.1 and the OP No.1 advised the complainant to bring back the handset to the shop of OP No.2. Following the advice of the Ops, The complainant handed over the handset to Op No.2 in his shop for rectifying the problem. The complainant visited the shop of OP No.2 instead of getting repaired the same, the Op No.2 dragging the days assuring the complainant that the problem will be rectified.
3. The complainant being a businessman he had purchased the handset, after buying the handset it is useless. From which the complainant suffered a lot by financial as well as mental agony.
4. Even after several visits of the complainant to OP No.2 failed to rectify the problem. Hence, the complainant issued a legal notice to Op No.1, 2 and 3 but only OP No.3 has replied on 16-07-2016. Hence, the complainant has filed present complaint and sought order for a new handset from the Ops and the compensation of Rs.20,000/- and Rs.2,000 of the litigation charges and other reliefs as this forum deems fit.
5. The predecessor on seat registered the complaint and notices were ordered as such OP No.1 and 2 appeared before the forum but they have not filed any written version.
6. In the background of the above said pleadings, the complainant himself examined as CW1 in support of the allegation the documents produced are Cash Invoice marked as EX C1, job sheet as EX C2, Legal notice as EX C3, registered postal notice cover receipt C4 and C4 A, postal acknowledgment P8 another receipt C7, copy of the interim reply C5 & C6. On perusing of the above document and arguments heard on complainant side, we conceived that the dispute is regarding handset Key/Button, Touchpad not working, frequently hanging problem and also Battery issues stoppage of functioning handset purchase of 09 months the complainant was informed to the OP No.1, 2 and 3 and the handset had handed over to OP No.2’s shop, the OP No.2 had not rectified the problem and drag the days but assuring the complainant that the handset will be repaired. The OP No.1 had denied all averments made in the complaint at the time of appearance. But, he had not filed any written version the points arises before us for adjudication are as follows:
1.Whether there is any deficiency of service by the Ops as alleged in the complaint?
2.Whether the Complainant is entitled for relief as claimed?
3.What Order?
Our Answer to the above Points are:-
Point No.1 – Affirmative,
Point No.2 – Partly Affirmative,
Point No.3 - As per the final order.
R E A S O N S
7. POINT NO.1: The complainant had produced the cash invoice bearing Invoice No: 4734 dated: 13-07-2015 issued by the OP No.1 in the name of the complainant for purchasing the handset which clearly establishes that the complainant purchased the said handset. The purchase of handset itself build a relationship of purchaser and seller between the complainant and the Ops, the OP No.3 is the manufacturer of the product purchased by the complainant who had alleged that viewing of business, it is purely for the domestic purpose .
8. The OP No.3 is the manufacturer of the OP No.1 is the dealer of OP No.3. The complainant had purchased the said handset on 13-07-2015 from OP No.1 which had stopped functioning within 09 months of purchase. The complainant had approach the OP No1 for rectification of the handset the complainant was directly connected to the OP No.1. As per the direction of the Op No.1 the complainant had handed over the handset to OP No.2 for repair when the OP No.2 had not repaired the handset for long period of more than 2 months, the complainant had issued a legal notice to his advocate to Ops stating the non-functioning of the handset as per the Interim reply notice given by the OP No.3 it cannot be accepted that the OP No.3 was not aware of the non-functioning of the handset but the OP No.1 & 2 have not replied to the legal notice issued by the complainant, it is clear that the Ops have received the notice as per the document placed before the forum i.e. EX C3 & C4, OP No.1 & 2 or OP No.3 had not taken any steps to prove that the handset is in a good condition. There was a sufficient time to the Ops to clarify and filed an expert opinion before the forum to show that the said handset is in a good condition. Such being the case, after receiving a legal notice Ops might have look after the problems, but the Ops have not done so OP No.2 was left not known OP No.1 & 2 present OP No.3 absent before the forum after the service of the notice from the forum. The OP No.1 has stated in his oral submission that the complainant have free service benefit within the warranty period the customer had approach a particular authorized service center for necessary service. The OP have informed the same to the complainant through a letter after receiving the legal notice and the responsibility of the manufacturer does not ceases just giving the warranty card along with their products. The complainant has handed over the Lenovo mobile handset for rectification to OP No.2 within 9 months of purchase. Hence the handset was handed over for rectification within the warrant period.
9. The cash paid receipt bearing No.4734 dated: 13-07-2015 for Rs.6,800/-(Included VAT) establishes that the complainant had purchased a Lenovo A536 handset clearly established that the complainant had purchase the above said handset from OP No1’s shop along with one year of handset warranty and six months warranty of Battery and Charger also had been issued.
10. The non-functioning of the handset was as keypad/button, touch pad not worked frequently hanging problem & battery issues this all had been informed to OP No.1 and handed over the handset for repair to OP No2, i.e. The dealer of the OP No1 & 2 have himself send the handset for repair for an authorized service center, OP No.2 has issued customer unit receipt EX C2. But intension of the OP No.2 is best known to him he had only drag the days and even he has not replied to the notice sent by the complainant or by the forum. Till now the handset is with OP No.2 even it was not denied by the Ops, the OP No.1 is the authorized dealer of OP No.3 they have day today communication with the business of his company. Under this circumstance the Ops totally mislead to the complainant in this case. This clearly establishes the Ops have committed deficiency in service. Hence, we answer to point No.1 in affirmative.
11. POINT NO.2 : As per the above discussion, the complainant purchased a Mobile handset from OP-1 manufactured by OP No.3 this proved that Ops have committed deficiency in service. Hence, the complainant is entitled for partial relief. We answer to point No.2 in partially affirmative.
12. POINT NO.3 : In the result of the above findings, we deliver the following:
//ORDER//
- This Complaint is partially allowed.
- The Ops are jointly and severally liable to pay an amount of Rs.6,445/-(Six thousand four hundred forty five)(Excluded VAT) being the cost of the handset along with the interest at 06% per annum from the date of this complaint within 30 days.
- The Ops are jointly and severally liable to pay a compensation of Rs.3,000/-(Rupees three thousand) towards mental agony and harassment and Rs.2,000/-(Rupees two thousand) towards litigation charges.
- Ops are directed to comply this order within a period of 30 days from the date of this order, failing which the Ops are liable to pay interest at 10% p.a., on the cost of handset of Rs.6,445/-(Rupees Six thousand four hundred forty five only) till realization.
- Send a copy of this Order to both parties free of cost.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by me in the Open Court 21st day of December, 2016)
