Delhi

East Delhi

CC/815/2015

MR. TUNGESH - Complainant(s)

Versus

VANSHIKA ELEC. - Opp.Party(s)

16 Oct 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO. 815/15

 

SHRI TUNGESH

S/o Lt. Dr. Sadanand Pandey,

Chamber No. 101, Patiala House Courts,

New Delhi- 110001

                                                                                                     ….Complainant

 

Vs.     

1. VANSHIKA ELECTRONICS

Authorized Service Centre Of

M/S Lenovo India Private Ltd.

WA-118, Shakarur, Mother Dairy Road,

New Delhi- 110092

 

2. LENOVO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,

Vatlka Business Park,

1^st Floor, Badshahpur Road,

Sector-49, Sohna Road,

Gurgaon- 122001

                                                                                                            …Opposite party

 

 

Date of Institution: 16.10.2015

Judgement Reserved on: 18.10.2019

Judgement Passed on: 22.10.2019

 

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr.  P.N. Tiwari (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By: Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

JUDGEMENT

The present complaint has been filed by Shri Tungesh, the complainant against the Vanshika Electronics, (OP-1) and Lenovo India Private Limited, (OP-2) with the, allegation of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice under Section 12 and             Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Facts necessary for the disposal of the present complaint are that on 12.08.2014, the complainant had purchased one mobile phone manufactured by Lenovo India Pvt. Ltd., OP-2, model Lenovo Smart Phone P780 Black 8 GB for Rs. 14,500/-.

Since the date of purchase there was defect with respect to the network and data and one day the handset abruptly stopped functioning for which the complainant approached M/s Vanshika Electronics Authorized Service Centre of OP-2 on 27.09.2014. The complainant was informed that there might be problem with the motherboard, which required to be replaced and was asked to collect the repaired handset after 10 days. The complainant has further stated that the request for standby phone was declined due to which the complainant was constrainted to buy basic cell phone as his father had been hospitalized .

 Again the repaired handset had same technical defect like wifi and Bluetooth problem, as well as the problems reported earlier of data and network for which the complainant approached OP-1 on 27.08.2015. This time also the request for standby phone was declined due to which the complainant had to borrow cell phone from his friend on 04.09.2015. The complainant visited OP-1 to collect the repaired handset but OP-1 could not trace the same and assured the complainant to collect the same after two days. The complainant has also stated that though the standby phone was provided by OP-1, it was of inferior quality. Since, OP-1 had failed to return the repaired hand set to the complainant, the complainant has alleged deficiency in service. The complainant has further stated that he had suffered huge losses as of the contact numbers and other necessary information pertaining to his clients, meeting schedule, important documents could not be restored, which caused mental agony and pain.

The complainant has prayed for directions to OPs to refund the cost of the mobile phone i.e. Rs. 14,500/- alongwith interest @18% per annum, refund cost of mobile phone purchased under urgency i.e. Rs. 4,550/-, Rs. 10,00,000/- as compensation on account of gross negligence and deficiency in service; Rs. 5,00,000/- towards quantified damages for the breach of contract and Rs. 50,000/- as litigation expenses.

Retail invoice dated 12.08.2014, service record dated 27.09.2014, retail invoice for Rs. 4,550/- for the handset purchased by complainant on 27.09.2014, service record dated 27.08.2015 have been annexed with the complaint.

Notice was served upon OP-1 and OP-2.

OP-1 was served by way of publication, they did not appear despite service, hence, they were proceeded ex-parte.

Written Statement was filed on behalf of OP-2, where they have authorized                  Mr. Ronendro Singh. Pleas taken in their defence, are: the complainant was attended by the authorized service centre, OP-1; where the mother board had been replaced free of cost as the same was under warranty. The smart phone of the complainant was ready for delivery, but it was the complainant who had not collected the same. They have submitted that as per the terms of warranty, the mobile was required to be repaired at the first instance and replacement was to be done only in case where handset was beyond repairs. They have admitted that the complainant had approached the authorized service centre on 27.09.2014 with the issue of no network and data. Thereafter the handset was ready for delivery on 16.10.2014, but the complainant collected the same on 25.10.2014. They have further submitted that the repaired hand set was ready to be delivered and had been lying with the service centre, since, November, 2015, but the complainant did not collect the same.

A standby phone, Lenovo A 526 was handed over to the complainant. Loss of phone was also denied. They have stated that no deficiency in service can be attributed to them since they have attended the  complainant as and when he approached and the hand set was repaired free of cost as per warranty terms and conditions. Rest of the contents have been denied with the prayer for directions to the complainant to collect the handset from the service centre.

Board resolution dated 16.11.2012 authorizing Mr. Ronendro Singh is             Annexure A-1, service record dated 27.09.2014 is Annexure A-2, job sheet dated 27.08.2015 have been annexed with their reply.

Evidence by way of affidavit was filed on behalf of complainant, where he has reiterated the contents of his complaint. He has got exhibited the retail invoice dated 12.08.2014 as Ex.CW1/1, service record dated 17.09.2014 as Ex.CW1/2 alongwith invoice dated 27.09.2014 of the new mobile phone as Ex.CW1/3. He has also got exhibited the original service centre receipt of date 27.08.2015 as Ex.CW1/4. He has deposed that he had not received any communication from OP-1 regarding his mobile phone. However, he received a phone call on 03.11.2015 around 12 noon by a person stating to be an executive of OP-1, requesting the complainant to collect the handset. He has further stated that the said executive misbehaved and used filthy language when he was informed regarding the present complaint.

Mr. Shankara Narayanan Prakash, the Authorized Representative has been examined on behalf of OP-2. He has also repeated the contents of their Written Statement. He has relied upon the board resolution dated 02.08.2016 as Ex.A-1, copy of service report dated 27.09.2014 as Ex.A-2, copy of service report of date 28.08.2015 as Ex.A-3 and Ex.A-4, copy of limited warranty as Ex.A-5.

We have heard the arguments on behalf of Ld. Counsel for Complainant and none has appeared on behalf of OP-2 to argue. We have perused the written arguments filed by them. The case of the complainant was that the handset was not returned to him after repairs by OP-1. In support of his contention he has placed on record the job sheet dated 27.08.2015, which is Ex.CW1/4, where the problem reported was “wifi- BT problem” further as per the Clause 14 of the terms and conditions of the said exhibit:

“The customer shall take a delivery of the product within 14 (fourteen) days of written intimation from Lenovo Service Centre. This shall be regardless whether the product is repaired or not.”

Thus, from the bare reading of the above clause it is clear that OP-1 was required to send the written intimation to the complainant. Even otherwise, the plea taken by           OP-2 that it was the complainant who had failed to collect the repaired handset is also not supported by any document, where either OP-1 or OP-2 have asked the complainant to collect the repaired handset. Thus, the plea of OP-2 does not hold any ground. The complainant has also placed on record the invoice of Rs. 4,550/- for the handset which he was constrained to purchase, as OP-1 failed to return the handset in time. Therefore, they are liable to pay for the cost of same i.e. Rs. 4,550/-.

At the same time the complainant in his affidavit has also stated that he had received a call from executive of OP-1 who not only misbehaved but also abused. Since, OP-1 is ex-parte, the allegation made by complainant have remained unrebutted.

Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the present complaint the complainant has successfully proved that OP-1 and OP-2, were deficient in services. We direct OP-1 and OP-2 jointly and severally to pay Rs. 19,050/- (the cost of the handset  in dispute i.e. Rs. 14,500/- + Rs. 4,050/- cost of the handset purchased in alternative) alongwith interest @ 7% from the date of filing of the complaint till realization.

We further award compensation of Rs. 7,000/- on account of mental agony and harassment. This includes the cost of litigation. The order be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of order.

Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

           File be consigned to Record Room.

 

 (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)                                              (SUKHDEV SINGH)

                           Membe                                                                         President