Ramdeo Masina - Complainant(s)


1- Lenovo Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

T.Panda, S.Bose, A.K. Panda, A.K.Panda

25 May 2018


District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sambalpur
Near, SBI Main Branch, Sambalpur
Complaint Case No. CC/54/2017
( Date of Filing : 07 Jul 2017 )
1. Ramdeo Masina
R/O- Sargipali, Po- maneswar P.S- Dhama
1. 1- Lenovo Pvt. Ltd.
Doddenkundi Village,Merathalli,Outer ring Road,K.R.Puram Hobli,Bangalore-560037
2. 2-M.D. (flipkart)
Health amp, Happines Private Ltd.At- Raluk-Thiruvallur, tamilnadu,601206
3. 3-In charge service Centre,Hcl Service Ltd.
At-Lenovo Motorola Exclussive, Ground Flooor, Block-1, Bhaawani complex, Sanid Nagar,
For the Complainant:
For the Opp. Party:
Dated : 25 May 2018
Final Order / Judgement



C.C. No.54 of 2017


            Ramdeo Masina,

Son of Satyanarayan Masina,

Aged about 37 years,

Resident of Sargipali,

P.O.. Maneswar,

P.S. Dhama,

Dist-Sambalpur                                                                    ……………… Petitioner




  1. Lenovo (India) Pvt. Ltd. Fems Icon Level 2

Doddenkundi village,

Merathahalli, Outeer Ring Road K.R. Puram Hobli, Bangalore-560037


  1. Flipkart, through Managing Director, Health amp; Happiness (Pvt.) Ltd.

At- Raluk-Thiruvallur, Tamilnadu, India -601206


       3.  In-charge, Service Centre, HCL Service Ltd. Bhubaneswar ESC,

             At – Lenovo Motorola Exclusive, G. Floor, Block-1

            Bhaawani Complex, Sahid Nagar, Bhubaneswar        .………….. Opp. Parties


       For Complainant                       :   Sri Trinath Panda, Sudeepta Bose & associates

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



                                SMT. S. TRIPATHY, MEMBER

                              SHRI K.D. DASH, MEMBER


Date of Order: 25.05.2018


Shri A.P. Mund, President

The complainant filed a petition  on the following among  other grounds;

That he has purchased  one (Lenovo)mobile handset  model No. Moto-M (Grey-64 GB) through  Flipkart from O.P No. 1. The order was placed on dt. 03.04.17 vide order ID No.OD108808460353705000. Cost of the mobile was Rs. 17,999/-.   After seven days use of the mobile, the audio speaker of the  mobile phone was found defective.  The O.P. No. 2 was contacted for replace it with the same model on 24.04.2017. Within three days  same defect was again  brought to the notice of the  O.P. No. 2, but O.P. No. 2  refused to exchange the mobile and advised the complainant to contact the O.P. No. 3 who is the authorized service centre of the O.P.No. 1.  O.P. No. 3 was contacted to who asked to deposit the mobile set with the service centre. The complaint No. given was SOIN0234831704290039.  The complainant contacted the O.P.  No. 3 on dt. 28.05.17 and again on 15.06.17  The complainant on 15.06.2017 reached the office O.P. No. 3; who refused to  repair the mobile,  shown their  incapacity  of repairing the same.


            On the basis of the above the complainant prays for following relief;

  1. Refund the entire cost of the mobile handset i.e. Rs. 17,999/- (Rupees seventeen thousand nine hundred ninety nine only)
  2. That the O.Ps be directed to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) to the complainant towards mental agony, harassment and financial loss.
  3. Cost of Rs.7,000/-(Rupees seven thousand only) towards to and fro  from Sambalpur to Bhubaneswar for repairing of the mobile handset.
  4. Cost of litigation.
  5. Any other fit and equitable relief, the complainant is entitled to.

Documents relied upon ;

  1. Purchase Certificate dt.04.04.2017.
  2. Purchase Certificate dt.15.04.2017.
  3. Job card for repairing of mobile handset by Bhubaneswar Service centre.
  4. Token granted by Service Centre, Bhubaneswar.
  5. Any other document/s found relevant at the time of hearing.

O.Ps. were properly noticed, but they failed to make their attendance and on dt.09.10.17 they  were set exparte and till date of the order the O.Ps  did not make any effort to put forth their case before this forum. Heard the argument of the Advocate for the complainant who emphasized that  there was inherent defect in the hand set.  The O.P.No.2 should have replaced the set instead of sending the complainant to the O.P. No. 3.  This replacement process should have continued till the that he is consumer of O.P. No.2 found a satisfactory hand set.  O.P. No. 3,  though advertising the authorized  service centre  of O.P. No. 1; till they could not replace the  audio speaker set which speaks volume about their capacity to repair.  The O.P No. 1 is the manufacturer of the mobile set.  Though the mobile set was a costly one, till O.P.1 has made no effort either to replace the defective set with a working model or supply genuine spare part to the  authorized service centre O.P. No. 3 to repair the set.  The combined effort of all the O.Ps. has resulted in the holding a defective set which is of no use to him .  Hence, he submitted that all the prayers made in the complaint petition  is genuine and he is legally  bound to  receive those  amounts mentioned in the prayers.


We heard the argument of the Learned Advocate for the complainant, perused the documents and  have come to a conclusion  that, the complainant was supplied with a defective mobile set as mentioned in sec and  all the O.Ps were deficient as mentioned in sec 2 (g)  of the C.P. Act 1986. We are also convinced that the O.Ps have supplied spurious goods as mention in 2 (oo). Till date of the order the O.Ps have taken no steps either to repair the mobile set or replace the same with working model. 

Hence, we hold all the O.Ps are liable on account of 2 (f,g, & oo) of C.P. Act and ordered that the mobile Moto-M (Grey-64 GB) be replaced or pay Rs. 17,999/- the cost of the mobile and pay a sum of Rs. 7,000/- for causing mental agony harassment and financial loss and cost of the litigants.  All the  three O.Ps have jointly and severally liable there to carry out the order  within a period of 30 days from the date of order otherwise this amount will carry an  interest of 18% from the date of order till payment.




                      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.



[HON'BLE MRS. S.Tripathi]

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!


Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number


Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.