IN THE PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMERS DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, SAMBALPUR

C.C. No.86 of 2017

1. Saroj Kumar Mohapatra,

    Aged about 65 years,

    S/o- Late Bipin Bihari Mohapatra,

    Resident of 302-B, Kushabhadra, Greater Sambalpur complex

    P.O.- Bareipali, P.S.- Ainthapali,

    Dist-Sambalpur.

2. Lagnajit Mohapatra,

    Aged about 33 years,

    S/o Saroj Kumar Mohapatra, 303, Tower-4,

    Runwal Orchard Residency, LBS Marg,

    Ghatkopar West, Mumbai - 400086                                   ……………… Complainants

-VERSUS –

1. LENOVO INDIA PVT. LTD.
2.  

Post, Kr Puram Hobli, Doddenakund village,

Marathhalli, Bengaluru-560037, Karnataka.

2.    E-Mobiles,

       Anjaneya Infrastructure  Project No. 38 & 39, Soukya

       Road, Kacherakanahalli, Hoskote Taluka, Bangalore,

       Rural District, Bangalore – 560067, Karnataka, India.

3.    Maa Santoshi Enterprise,

       Gujarati Colony, Sambalpur

       At present, Near Budharaja High School, Upstairs of

       Jaypee Electronics, Main Road, Budharaja,

       P.O. Budharaja, P.S. Ainthapali, Dist. Sambalpur.

4.    Sri Sunil Mohanty, C/o Maa Santoshi Enterprise,

       Near Budharaja High School, Upstairs of  

       Jaypee Electronics, Main Road, Budharaja,

       P.O. Budharaja, P.S. Ainthapali, Dist. Sambalpur                      ………….. Opp. Parties

For Complainant                     : A.K.Sharma, P.Thakur & A.S.N Reddy      

For O.P.s No.1,2,3 & 4           : None

PRESENT:-     SHRI A.P. MUND, PRESIDENT

SMT. S. TRIPATHY, MEMBER

SHRI K.D. DASH, MEMBER

Date of Order: 21.05.2018

Sri. A.P Mund, President

1. The case of the complainant  as follows:-

That the complainantNo. 2 placed online order for aLenovo Mobile Phone “Lenovo Vibe K4 Note (Black, 16GB). The cost of the phone is Rs. 10,999/-.The said mobile phone was sold by O.P. No. 2 and despatched to the complainant .The complainant No. 1 usedthe above mobile set at Sambalpur for around seven months without any glitch. After a flawless use for seven monthsthe mobile set started giving problem. The set hanged in the month of October 2017. The complainant No. 1 approached the service centre i.e. O.P. No. 3 on 30.10.2017. The O.P. No. 3 provided the job sheet. The O.P. No. 3 returned the mobile set to the complainant No. 1. stating that it was repaired. According to the complainant the set gave further problemand again approached the O.P. No. 3. He was issued with the job sheet No. SBP-A 1354 dtd. 06.11.17.The problem was rectified and the set was returned backto the complainant No. 1.

2. Again the set started giving problem and the complainant No. 1 approached O.P. No.3 on 17.11.17. Another job sheet was given  vide No. SBP A-1317 dtd. 17.11.17. The complainant No. 1, finding that the problem was not getting solved at the level of O.P. No. 3 & 4 and contacted  ‘Lenovo Care’ via email  to lencare@lenovo.com. The e-mail was replied and ‘lencare’ requested the complainant No. 1  to  contact smartphonets @lenovo.com.
3. The complainant No. 1 sent e-mail to smartphonets on 19.11.17  & the smartphonets asked the complainant No. 1 to provide details.  Accordingly complainant No. 1 he sent the required details on 24.11.17. The complainant No. 1 was again directed to  send copies of job sheet  which was sent  as required, on 10.12.17. On 11.12.17 smartphonets  intimated that they have received the details and asked  for complainant to wait.  Though he waited, still  the  mobile set was not rectified.  The complainant No. 1  made several calls to the O.P  No. 3 but to no avail.
4. According to the complainant No. 1; the cause of action arose in the month of August 2017 and service of O.P. No. 3 was requisitioned and when the set was not  repaired till date of filing of the case. Hence, the case is within jurisdiction of this forum.
5. On the basis of the above the complainant has prayed for

a) return of the mobile or refund of the  purchase price with interest  from august 2017,

b)Compensation of Rs. 30,000/- for harassment,

c)Litigation expenses of Rs. 11,000/-,

d) any other/other release  deemed fit.

6. To substantiate his case the complainants submitted invoice dt. 22.11.16 which is on Annexure -1, Service job sheet on annexure-2, Service job sheet on  annexure - 4. Notices were sent to all the O.Ps. The SR against O.P. No. 2 was    backed with the postal remark “refused”.
7. Hence the O.P. No. 2 was set exparte on dt. 16.03.18. The O.Ps.No. 1,3, &4 were set exparte on 05.04.18 as service was deemed sufficient.
8. Hence the case is fixed for exparte hearing.

9. The case was posted for hearing on 24.04.2018.
10.  Heard the Learned Advocate for complainant and gave details of the harassment meted out by the O.P. No. 1,3 & 4 combinedly on the complainant No. 1.  He narrated that the complainant No. 1 has superannuated from Odisha Superior Judicial Service (Senior Branch) and how the complainant No. 1 was made to run by the O.P. No. 3 & 4 for repair of the mobile set.  Feeling that  the mobile set  could not be rectified by the O.P.  No. 3  & 4, the complainant No. 1 contacted ‘lencare’, ‘smartphonets’ but no avail. He was made to send details of the mobile many a times.  The details was  received  but the  mobile set was not repaired and returned back to the complainant No. 1. Though the complainant No. 1 personally visited the address of the O.P. No. 3 & 4 , the matter was not shorted out.  The complainant No. 1 suspected inherent defect in the mobile set and for which he was compelled to file this case.  His suspicion was found true as the mobile set was not returned, after proper rectification of defect, till the date of  filing of the case.

O R D E R

We are convinced that the O.Ps No. 1,3 &4  are deficient in providing service.  They could not repair the set neither returned the set.

Hence we believe that the set has an inherent defect for which it could not be rectified.  The complainant No. 1 was made to run after the O.P. No. 3 & 4 many a time. This is gross deficiency in service, O.P has not given service as per their advertisement for which we hold that the O.Ps No. 1,3 & 4  are grossly negligent in providing service to the complainant No. 1. They did not bother to return the set nor refunded the purchase amount.  The O.P. No. 2 went to the extent of refusing the summon sent by this forum, the other also did not choose to appear before this forum.  Hence we hold that the O.Ps are grossly negligent and  deficient in rendering service  and has supplied the  complainant No. 1 a defective set with inherent defect to the complainant No. 1. Hence it is ordered that the O.Ps 1, 3 & 4 jointly refund the purchase price of the mobile set i.e. Rs. 10,999/-, pay  compensation of Rs. 7,000/- of causing mental agony etc.  to the complainant No.1.  The above money of Rs, 20,999/- is to be paid within a period of 30 days to the date of the order. Otherwise the amount of Rs. 20,999/-  will carry an interest of 18% from the date of order till payment.

                                                                                                      Sd/-

                      Sd/-                                                                               SHRI A.P.MUND

         SMT S.TRIPATHY. Member I agree.                                           PRESIDENT.                                                                      .

                      Sd/-                                                                                           Sd/-

         SHRI K.D.DASH.  Member    I agree.                             Dictated and corrected by me.

                                                                                                               PRESIDENT