DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM

       Dated this the 30^th day of June, 2023                                                                                                

                          Filed on: 27/05/2022

PRESENT

Shri.D.B.Binu                                                                          President

Shri.V.Ramachandran                                                              Member

Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N                                                                 Member                                                        

CC NO. 274/2022

Between

COMPLAINANT

Francis Borgia, Malayala Bhumi, Kerala Vision Building, Vettikattuparambil Lane, Toll Gate, Edapally, Kochi 682012.

VS

OPPOSITE PARTIES

1. Lenovo India Pvt. Ltd., Ferns Icon, 2, Outer Ring Road, Doddanekundi, Mahadevapura, Bengaluru, Karnataka 560037.
2. Mahesh Chamdra, manager, Lenovo India Pvt. Ltd., Ferns Icon, 2, Outer Ring Road, Doddanekundi, Mahadevapura, Bengaluru, Karnataka 560037.
3. Mobile Care, TCXIX/122, 8&9, 1^st Floor, Kerala Ice Factory, Poothole Road, Thrissur 680004.

FINAL ORDER

Sreevidhia T.N., Member:

1. A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:

The complainant had purchased a mobile tablet from Lenovo India Pvt. Ltd., model M 10 FHD Plus (2^nd Gen) 10.3inch 26.6 cm, 4GB, 128 GB, Wifi +LTE marketed by Amazon as per order No. 406-1246224-2739541 dated 10/09/2021 for Rs.23,304/-. After just few days from the date of purchase the mobile tablet showed some problems in the battery, touch screen and mother board of the tablet. The complainant had entrusted the mobile tablet to the 3^rd opposite party for repair. The service centre personnels informed that since the motherboard, the display and the battery were faulty, the spare parts will be available only within one week and hence they needed 6 working days to repair the mobile tablet. Since these parts are the most important part of a tablet, the complainant had requested for replacement of the tablet to the 3^rd opposite party. The complainant had waited for the repair of the tablet about 2 weeks. After 3 weeks the service centre informed that the tablet has been repaired and the complainant went there and brought back the tablet. After receiving the repaired device, within a few weeks, the tablet showed the same defect again. Battery and display were again become faulty. The Lenovo India Pvt. Ltd. insisted the complainant to entrust the tablet to the service centre and thus the complainant entrusted the tablet to the service centre. A complaint was sent by e-mail to a person, Mahesh Chandran who was holding responsible position at Lenovo India Pvt. Ltd. But no reply was received. After getting no response from them, the complainant contacted their online trading partner, Amazon. Amazon informed the complainant that as per the contract “we can only replace the product if it is notified the damage within seven days”. The complainant states that the tablet purchased at a price of Rs.23,340/- can be rendered completely useless at any time. The complainant also states that he has received any service or availability of spare parts claimed by 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties. The complaint is based on the inferior quality of the product and lack of qualified service during the warranty period. The 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties have irresponsibly denied the service for 42 days. The complainant alleges that he had lost his income due to the irresponsible act of the opposite party and hence he had to suffer a lot of mental agony, pain and other hardships. The complainant seeking compensation from the opposite parties, Rs.71,400/- as economic loss due to loss of employment for 42 days, Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony suffered for 42 days, Rs.23,400/- towards the price of the mobile tablet (a total of Rs.1,44,800/-) from the opposite parties.

2. Notice.

Notice was issued to the opposite parties from this Commission on 11/07/2022. Notices sent to 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties served on 19/07/2022. However on 22/09/2022 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties appeared before the Commission but version has not been filed by 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties. Consequently 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties are set ex-parte in the matter. The notice sent to 3^rd opposite party returned with an endorsement ‘Refused”. Hence 3^rd opposite party treated as ‘deemed service’. Hence 3^rd opposite party also set ex-parte.

3. Evidence

The complainant has produced 9 document which are marked as Exbt. A1 to A9. Complainant has filed proof affidavit also.

4. Points taken for consideration in this case are

1. Whether any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice is proved from the side of the opposite party towards the complainant?
2. If so, reliefs and costs?

For the sake of convenience we have considered issue No. (1) and (2) together.

The case of the complainant is that after a few days from the date of purchase of the complainant’s mobile tablet, it showed some issues in the battery and display of it. For availing spare parts he had to wait for 3 weeks. After the 1^st repair, the tablet showed the same defects again. The complainant requested for replacement of the product to Lenovo India Pvt. Ltd. But they did not respond to the complainant’s request promptly. But the complainant’s issue was resolved only by the seller Amazon on their own.

The complainant alleges that being the manufacturer/warranty provider, the Lenovo India is failed to keep the promises as per the advertisements they had given to the customer. The complainant alleges that the opposite parries are failed to provide prompt warranty service as assured.

We have verified all the documents filed by the complainant with fact of the case. Only the details of the important documents are mentioned here. Exbt. A1 is the Tax invoice/bill of Supply issued by Amazon with regards to the supply of the complainant’s Lenovo Tab for Rs.23,304/-. Exbt. A2 is the job sheet/customer information form dated 25/10/2021. Exbt. A5 is the e-mail communication between the complainant and Lenovo India Pvt. Ltd. Exbt. A6 is the lawyer notice dated 07/03/2022 sent by the complainant.to Lenovo India Pvt. Ltd. (1^st opposite party) and Mobile Care, TCXIX/122, 8&9, 1^st Floor, Kerala Ice Factory, Poothole Road, Thrissur (3^rd opposite party) through Adv. K. Sabu Dinesh. Exbt. A7 is the Interim reply given by Lenovo India Pvt. Ltd. through Adv. Ohm Prakash to the complainant stating that the matter has been settled amicably since the machine has replaced by Amazon.

The complainant has purchased the mobile tablet as per the order dated 10/09/2021. As per the job sheet (Exbt. A2) dated 25/10/2021 it is revealed that the complainant’s mobile tablet showed some defects in the battery of the product within a short span of its purchase. Exbt. A5 e-mail communications dated 03/11/2021, 05/11/2021, 08/11/2021, 11/11/2021, 12/11/2021, 07/01/2022, 10/01/2022 and 17/01/2022 reveals that the complainant’s mobile tablet is facing some battery issues. The 1^st opposite party in their e-mail communication admits that due to unavailability of spare parts it takes time to service the tablet. The opposite party No. 1 told the complainant to wait a week for the spare parts for the repair of the tablet. But the complainant had to wait for three weeks to get the product repaired. The complainant alleges that due to the delay in getting the spare parts by the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties, the complainant had to suffer huge mental, physical and financial problems. The complainant also alleges that 9 hours of battery back-up is claimed by Lenovo, actually the battery will need to be charged at least twice during 8 hours of working time. The complainant states that “the product purchased by the complainant is of poor quality and absence of prompt service during warranty period, continuous damage of the product, shortage of spare parts etc. indicates the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice of the opposite parties. It is completely unfair trade practice that the customer has to wait for months to get the spare parts”.

We have also noticed that even though notices sent to 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties served, they didn’t file their version. The notice sent to 3^rd opposite party is returned as ‘unclaimed.’ The complainant has filed proof affidavit in support of his arguments.

The 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties conscious failure to file their version inspite of having received the Commission’s notice to that effect amounts to an admission of the allegations levelled against them. Here the case of the complainant stands unchallenged by the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties. We have no reason to disbelieve the words of the complainant. The Hon’ble National Commission held a similar stance in its order cited 2017 (4) CPR Page 590 (NC).

The opposite parties have inadequately performed the desired service to the complainant which in turn has caused mental agony, pain, financial loss etc. to the complainant.

Hence we found that the issue No. (1) is found partly in favour of the complainant since the complainant in his complaint states that Amazon itself has taken initiative and replaced the device with a new one. Hence the complainant’s 3^rd prayer to get Rs.23,400/- as cost of the mobile tablet is not reasonable. The complainant has not produced any documents to show that the replaced product is also of substandard quality. The Commission observed that delay occured in getting the spare parts of the product purchased by the complainant and the delay occurred from the part of the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties in the replacement of the product is deficiency in service from their part and hence the opposite parties are liable to compensate the complainant.

On the basis of the above observations made by the Commission the complaint is partly allowed and the following orders are issued.

1. The 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties shall pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) as compensation to the complainant for the deficiency in service from their part.
2. The 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties shall also pay an amount of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) as cost of proceedings to the complainant.
3. The liability of the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties shall be jointly and severally.

The above order shall be compiled with within 30 days from the date of acceptance of a copy of this order failing which the amount ordered as (1) above shall carry interest at 5.5% per annum from the date of order till realization.

Pronounced in the Open Commission this the 30^th day of June, 2023.

Sreevidhia.T.N, Member

D.B.Binu, President

Assistant Registrar

APPENDIX

Complainant’s evidence:

Exbt. A1:    Copy of Tax Invoice dated 10/09/2021

Exbt. A2:    Copy of Job Sheet/Customer Information Form

Exbt. A3:    Copy of Job Sheet/Customer Information Form

Exbt. A4:    Copy of DOA Confirmation

Exbt. A5:    Copy of e-mail communication

Exbt. A6:    Copy of lawyer notice

Exbt. A7:    Copy of reply notice

Exbt. A8:    Copy of Screenshot

Exbt. A9:    Copy of AD card and postal receipt

Opposite parties’ evidence

Nil

Despatch date:

By hand:     By post                                                  

kp/

CC No. 274/2022

Order Date: 30/06/2023