IN THE PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMERS DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, SAMBALPUR
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
-VERSUS –
- Lenovo (India) Pvt. Ltd. Fems Icon Level 2
Doddenkundi village,
Merathahalli, Outeer Ring Road K.R. Puram Hobli, Bangalore-560037
- 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
PRESENT:- SHRI A.P. MUND, PRESIDENT
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;
- Refund the entire cost of the mobile handset i.e. Rs. 17,999/- (Rupees seventeen thousand nine hundred ninety nine only)
- 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.
- Cost of Rs.7,000/-(Rupees seven thousand only) towards to and fro from Sambalpur to Bhubaneswar for repairing of the mobile handset.
- Cost of litigation.
- Any other fit and equitable relief, the complainant is entitled to.
Documents relied upon ;
- Purchase Certificate dt.04.04.2017.
- Purchase Certificate dt.15.04.2017.
- Job card for repairing of mobile handset by Bhubaneswar Service centre.
- Token granted by Service Centre, Bhubaneswar.
- 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.
O R D E R
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/-
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
