Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/550/2014

Naveen Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

HCL Info System Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Munish Dev Adv.

07 Aug 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II U.T. CHANDIGARH Consumer Complaint No. : 550/2014 Date of Institution : 29.10.2014 Date of Decision : 07.08.2015 Naveen Kumar aged 22 years s/o Sh. Mahender Parkash, resident of H.No.641/6, Sarafa Bazar, Narwana, District Jind, Haryana. …… Complainant V e r s u s 1. HCL Info System Ltd., S.C.O. 66-67, 2nd Floor, Sector 17-A, Chandigarh, through its Manager Renu Chawla. 2. Managing Director, Bangalore Lenovo India Pvt. Ltd., Ferns Icon, Level-2, Doddenakund Village, Marathhalli Outer Ring Road, Marathhalli Post, Kr Puram Hobli, Banglore-560037. 3. Managing Director, Lenovo India Pvt. Ltd., Vatika Business Park, 1st Floor, Badshah Pur Road, Sec. 49, Sohna Road, Gurgaon-122001, Haryana. …. Opposite Parties. BEFORE: SHRI RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT SHRI JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER Argued by: Complainant in person. Sh.Ashim Aggarwal, Advocate for OPs No.2 and 3. OP No.1 exparte. PER RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT 1. The facts, in brief, are that, on 30.10.2013, the complainant purchased one mobile make – Lenovo K-900 EMEI No.860486023021454, from H.S. Distributors, Jaipur, on payment of Rs.26,731/-, vide VAT invoice Annexure C-1, having warranty upto 30.10.2014. It was stated that after few months of purchase of the said mobile handset, it started giving various troubles. The internet and headphones of the said mobile handset stopped working and therefore, the same was taken to Opposite Party No.1 for its repairs on 17.04.2014. However, when the said mobile handset was returned by the Opposite Party No.1, the defect of internet still persisted therein. On 09.07.2014, again the said mobile handset was taken to the Opposite Party, with the defects of headphone and internet. The mobile handset was returned to the complainant on 15.07.2014 but the mobile was still giving the problems and as such he submitted the same with the OP against the job sheet, Annexure C-3 in which it was mentioned that “waiting for software update and we will call you a/f 27.07.2014”. Upon receiving the call, the complainant visited the OP on 19.07.2014 and received the call but the internet problem was not sorted out and rather the LCD of the phone was physically damaged due to the negligence of the OP. The OP assured the complainant to resolve the problem as the phone was still under warranty and as such the same was submitted with the OP on 19.07.2014 with the problems “no power, internet problem, LCD problem. On 04.08.2014, the complainant received the mobile handset and the OP told him that the PCB replaced but he had to bear the expenses for the replacement of the LCD because the same was not covered under warranty. When the complainant objected to the same, then the OP agreed to repair the same and as such the same was again handed over to OP vide job sheet, Annexure C-5. It has further been averred that on 21.08.2014, the OP tried to convince to sign the job sheet with the remarks “received the phone in good working condition”. However, the complainant objected to the same and gave his remakes on the job sheet, “received the phone in same damaged condition”. Thereafter he approached the Customer Care of Lenovo on toll free number a number of times who assured him that the problem will be resolved in short time otherwise they will replace the mobile set with a new one. According to the complainant he called OP No.1 on its office number but to no avail. He has further averred that he is ready to submit the mobile phone in question as and when required. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant has filed the instant complaint. 2. Initially, OP No.1 appeared through its Counsel but subsequently, it remained absence and as such it was ordered to be proceeded against exparte vide order dated 05.03.2015. 3. OPs No.2 and 3 filed the written statement stating therein that as per service record on 17.04.2014, the problem of only headphone was reported and no problem of internet was reported and the same was duly rectified. It has been denied that the OP retained the phone. It has been pleaded that as per the service report duly signed by the complainant, it is stated that “product with customer’ and only the headphone (external device) was retained and he was told that he would be called as and when software update was available for solving the internet problem. Moreover, the headphone issue was resolved free of cost under warranty on 15.07.2014. It was denied that the OP called the complainant on 18.07.2014. The complainant himself went to service center and reported certain other problems. It has further been pleaded that the phone was handed over on 04.08.2014 to the complainant with all problems rectified. It has been denied that the OP had damaged the phone or that they refused to repair the same under the warranty. It has further been denied that the complainant noted that the phone was received in damaged condition. There is no such noting on the job sheet dated 04.08.2014 which was closed on 21.08.2014. It has further been pleaded that it is not known in what condition the phone has been kept by the complainant from August, 2014 till date. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on their part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been filed. 4. The complainant filed rejoinder to the written reply of the Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 controverting their stand and reiterating his own. 5. We have heard the complainant, in person, Counsel for OPs No.2 and 3 and have gone through the documents on record. 6. During the course of arguments, the Counsel for OPs No.2 and 3 submitted that they are ready to refund the price of the phone in question to the complainant. Since OPs No.2 and 3 have shown their willingness and readiness to refund the price of the mobile handset, in question, to the complainant after filing of the complaint before this Forum and, therefore, now the complainant is required to be compensated for the harassment and mental agony undergone by him at the hands of the OPs. Had the Opposite Parties redressed the genuine grievance of the complainant before filing of the complaint then the position certainly would have been different but they failed to do so. Keeping in view overall facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the ends of justice would be met if the complainant is awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- on account of mental agony and physical harassment besides Rs.2,100/- as litigation expenses. We order accordingly. 7. In view of the foregoing discussion, the complaint is allowed. The Opposite Parties are directed as under;- i) To refund the price of the mobile handset i.e. Rs.26,731/- to the complainant. The complainant is also directed to return the defective mobile handset to the OPs on receipt of the amount, aforesaid. ii) To pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment. iii) To pay a sum of Rs.2,500/- as costs of litigation. This order be complied with by the Opposite Parties, within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amounts at Sr.No.(i) and (ii) above shall carry interest @9% per annum from the date of this order till actual payment besides payment of litigation costs. 8. Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room. Announced 07.08.2015 Sd/- (RAJAN DEWAN) PRESIDENT Sd/- (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU) MEMBER Sd/- (PRITI MALHOTRA) MEMBER