Haryana

Kurukshetra

CC/558/2019

Jai Ram - Complainant(s)

Versus

Vardman Trading Company - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

26 Oct 2021

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KURUKSHETRA.

 

                                                          Consumer Complaint No.558 of 2019

Date of instt.:30.12.2019 

                                                          Date of Decision: 26.10.2021.

 

Jai Ram Saini Advocate chamber No.325 Multy Story Building, District Court, Kurukshetra District Kurukshetra.

                                                                             …….Complainant.                                                          Versus

1.Vardman Trading Company, 3016-B, 1^st Floor, Gali No.26, Hardiyan Singh Road, Beadonpura, Karolbagh, New Delhi through ikts Proprietor/owner.

2.M/s Lenovo Care Center, Rai Market, near Nokia Care Center, Bank of Baroda, Ke Uppar, Bank Road, Ambala Cantt District Ambala through its proprietor.

3. Lenovo India Pvt.Limited, D-233, Sector 63, Noida UP-201301 through its proprietor/owner.

 

          ….…Opposite parties.

 

Complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.

 

Before        Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.    

                   Ms. Neelam, Member. 

                   Shri Issam Singh Sagwal, Member.                                                        

 

Present:      Complainant in person.  

OP No.1 given up.

OP No.2 and 3 ex parte..  

ORDER

                                                                         

                    This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Jai Ram Saini against  Vardman Trading Company etc., the opposite parties.

2.                The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant purchased a mobile Phone online delivered at Kurukshetra from OP No.1 of Lenovo  K 8 note Model, EMEI No.8669411035663614 and 866941035663622  for a sum of Rs.9090/- on 7.1.2019 from the OP No.1 with one year guarantee . The OP No.1 is seller  and OP No.2 is the authorized Service Center and OP No.3 is the manufacturer company of the said mobile phone. It is further stated that after the purchased of the said mobile phone has various problems such as touch problems,  insert sim message, no incoming audio, no battery back up , switch off when calling, vaibrator not working properly and give voice as ring tone in silent/vibrating mode, switching off after some time and the complainant approached the OP no.1 and OP No.2 being dealer and service center  of the company. The complainant on 12.10.2019 approached the OP No.2 and he returned the mobile phone to the complainant after software of the said device as he says that it was the problem due to software only.  It is also submitted that on 5.12.2019 again the phone in question become totally out of order with same problems and the complainant approached the consumer care number of the company on mobile  and one officer of the company directed the complainant to approach the OP N o.2 and again the complainant approached the OP No.2 on 21.12.2019 and asked him to  give him the job seat after  deposit the said mobile phone but the OP No.2 denied it and after two or three hours, repaired the software and device and  accordingly the complainant collected the phone.  The OP No.2 assured that the mobile phone would work properly and if some problem again develops, the mobile phone would be replaced. The mobile phone worked for two days and on 23.12.2019 it stopped working and on approaching the OP No.2 told that the mobile phone is having manufacturing defect and it cannot be repaired.  The OP No. 2 also refused to issue job sheet and as such the complainant has no other option except to file the present complaint due to deficiency in services on the part of the Ops.  Thus, the complainant has filed the present complaint alleging deficiency in services on the part of the OP and prayed that the Ops be directed to refund the amount of Rs.9090/- i.e. cost of the mobile phone alongwith compensation for the mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant alongwith litigation expenses.

 

3.                Notice of the complaint was given to the Ops. OP No.2 failed to appear despite due service, therefore, OP no.2 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 12.2.2020.

 

                   Vide statement dated 14.09.2021 made by the learned counsel for the complainant, OP No.1 was given up, therefore, OP No.1 was given up vide order dated 14.09.2021.

 

                   OP no.3 was also duly served for 14.09.2021 but the OP No.3 failed to appear and contest the case, therefore, OP No.3 was also proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 14.09.2021.

 

4.                The complainant in support of his case has filed his affidavit  Ex.CW1/A and tendered  the document Ex.C-1 and closed his evidence.

 

5.                We have heard the complainant in person and gone through the material available on the case file.

6.                The complainant while reasserting the averments made in the complaint has argued that he purchased a mobile Phone online delivered at Kurukshetra from OP No.1 of Lenovo  K 8 note Model, EMEI No.8669411035663614 and 866941035663622  for a sum of Rs.9090/- on 7.1.2019 from the OP No.1 with one ;year guarantee . The OP No.1 is seller  and OP No.2 is the authorized Service Center and OP No.3 is the manufacturer company of the said mobile phone. It is further argued that  after the purchase of the said mobile phone has various problems such as touch problems,  insert sim message, no incoming audio, no battery back up , switch off when calling, vaibrator not working properly and give voice as ring tone in silent/vibrating mode, switching off after some time and the complainant approached the OP no.1 and OP No.2 being dealer and service center  of the company. The complainant on 12.10.2019 approached the OP No.2 and he returned the mobile phone to the complainant after software of the said device as he says that it was the problem due to software only.  It is also submitted that on 5.12.2019 again the phone in question become totally out of order with same problems and the complainant approached the consumer care number of the company on mobile  and one officer of the company directed the complainant to approach the OP N o.2 and again the complainant approached the OP No.2 on 21.12.2019 and asked him to  give him the job seat after  deposit the said mobile phone but the OP No.2 denied it and after two or three hours, repaired the software and device and  accordingly the complainant collected the phone.  The OP No.2 assured that the mobile phone would work properly and if some problem again develops, the mobile phone would be replaced. The mobile phone worked for two days and on 23.12.2019 it stopped working and on approaching the OP No.2 told that the mobile phone is having manufacturing defect and it cannot be repaired.   It is also argued that the OP No.2 also refused to issue job sheet and as such the complainant has no other option except to file the present complaint due to deficiency in services on the part of the Ops.  Thus, the complainant has filed the present complaint alleging deficiency in services on the part of the OP and prayed that the Ops be directed to refund the amount of Rs.9090/- i.e. cost of the mobile phone alongwith compensation for the mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant alongwith litigation expenses.

 

7.                From the copy of bill Ex.C-1 it is established that the complainant purchased one mobile phone  from OP No.1 for Rs.9090/-. The OP No.2 is customer care of the  said company. After the purchase of the mobile phone, problems like touch problem, sim insert message, non coming of audit, vibration etc. came in the phone and the complainant contacted the OP No.2 on 12.10.2019, 21.12.2019 and on 23.1.2.2019 but the problems developed in the mobile phone were not removed.  The OP No.2 on 23.1.2.2019 refused to repair the phone on the ground that the mobile phone is having manufacturing defect and it cannot be removed.  Despite repeated requests Ops failed to repair the phone satisfactorily and also failed to replace the mobile phone of the complainant which amounts to grave deficiency in services on the part of the OP No.3 being the manufacturer company of the mobile phone in question. This version of the complainant goes completely unrebutted and unchallenged because the OP No.2 and 3 were preceded against ex-parte whereas OP No.1 was given by the complainant being unnecessary.  This, the OP No.3 is held liable to refund the cost of the mobile phone i.e. Rs.9090/- alongwith compensation for the mental harassment and agony caused to the complainant due to delivery of a  mobile phone which was having manufacturing defect.

 

8.                In view of our above mentioned findings, we accept the present complaint and direct the OP No.3 to refund the sum of Rs.9090/- i.e. cost of the mobile phone to the complainant. The OP No.3 shall also pay a sum of Rs.5000/- to the complainant as compensation for the mental harassment and agony caused to him and the litigation expenses. OP No.3 is further directed to make the compliance of this order within a period of 30 days from the date of this order, failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to initiate proceedings u/s 25/27 of the Consumer Protection Act. However, the complaint qua OP No.2 is hereby dismissed being customer care center only. Likewise complaint qua OP No.1 is also dismissed being given up by the complainant.  Certified copy of the order be supplied to the complainant as per rules and File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open commission:

Dt.:26.10.2021.                                                                (Neelam Kashyap)                                                                                                   President.

 

 

 

(Issam Singh Sagwal),              (Neelam)         

 Member                                     Member.