Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/245/2015

Navdeep Singh Nayyar - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

IN Person

24 Sep 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	245/2015
Date of Institution	:	18.05.2015
Date of Decision	:	24/09/2015

 

                       

                            

Navdeep Singh Nayyar son of Paramjit Singh resident of House No.601/5, Manvata Nagar, Hoshiarpur.

                   ...  Complainant.

Versus

1.   Lenovo India Pvt. Ltd., Vatika Business Park, 1^st Floor, Badshah Pur Road, Sector 49, Sohna Road, Gurgaon-122001 through its M.D.

 

2.   HCL Infosystems Ltd., SCO 66-67, 2^nd Floor, Sector 17-A, Chandigarh -160017 through its Manager.

 

3.   Anmol Watches and Electronics Pvt. Ltd., SCO 1012-13, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh through its Propreitor.

 

…. Opposite Parties.

BEFORE:   SHRI RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

SHRI JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER

SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

Argued by:Complainant in person.

          Sh.Ashim Aggarwal, Counsel for OP No.1.

          OPs No.2 and 3 exparte.

 

PER RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

1.      In brief, the case of the complainant is that  he bought a mobile phone  make Lenova S660 from OP No.1 vide invoice dated 10.05.2014 for Rs.12,390/- (Annexure C-1), having one year warranty.  It has been averred that in March, 2015 the phone started giving problems of automatic shutdown and network failure which resulted in frequent call dropping.  He brought the problem to the notice of OP No.2, who told him that it was a software problem and it claimed to resolve the problem by just reinstalling the factory software and that too without issuing a job card.  However, the problem was not rectified. Ultimately, he handed over the phone to OP No.2 vide job sheet dated 23.04.2015 and he also informed it that earlier also, the factory software was reinstalled but the problem was not resolved and he also made endorsement in this regard at the bottom of the job sheet itself.   It has further been averred that the said phone was returned to him on 28.04.2015 after doing the general service.  According to the complainant, the problem was still not resolved and fed with the phone, he requested OP No.2 on 05.05.2015 either to refund the amount of the phone or to replace it with a new phone but OP No.2 took the possession of the phone by stating that it would do the needful.  The complainant again specifically mentioned at the bottom of the job sheet that the same problem still exists in the phone inspite of software updates.  On 12.05.2015 the complainant enquired about the phone from OP No.2 and the officials of the OP No.2 after 1-2 hours handed over the phone to him saying that the main board had been changed. Upon this, he asked the Officials of the OP No.2 to show the faulty part as a proof but they refused to do so by stating that it was against the company policy. The complainant alleged that at the time of handing over of the phone, the battery was drained and so he could not check it on the spot and this fact was also endorsed at the bottom of the job sheet.  He again faced the same problems and approached OP No.2 who instead of listening the problem refused to repair the phone within the warranty period by saying that the repair would be chargeable.  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.      OP No.1, in its written statement, admitted the facts with regard to the purchase of the mobile phone in question.  It has been pleaded that for the first time the problem was reported on 23.04.2015 regarding shutdown and network dropping.  The endorsement made by the complainant has been denied and the same does not imply that noting was accepted as correct by the OPs and the complainant is free to make notings/endorsement on the job card.  It has further been pleaded that the issue reported on 23.04.2015 was resolved and the phone was handed back after testing on 28.04.2015. The repairs/software updates were carried out free of cost under warranty.   It has further been pleaded that the complainant was duly informed that the phone was kept under observation after service and asked to collect the same when the phone was found working in good condition. It has further been pleaded that the PCB was changed free of cost under warranty and problem reported was resolved.  The fault part which is replaced becomes the property of the OP and is never handed over to the customer. It has further been pleaded that there is no record of any complaint being lodged with it after the phone was handed over to him on 12.05.2015. It has further been pleaded that the warranty of the phone had expired on 09.05.2014 and the same was repaired two times free of cost. The remaining allegations were denied, being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on its part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
3.      Notices sent for the service of Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 through registered post on 27.05.2015, were not received back served/unserved till date.  As the period of more than 30 days had passed, therefore, it was presumed that they were duly served.  None appeared on behalf of the Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 on the date fixed, hence they were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 03.07.2015.
4.      The complainant filed rejoinder to the written reply of OP No.1 controverting its stand and reiterating his own.
5.      We have heard the complainant, in person, learned counsel for OP No.1 and have gone through the documents on record.
6.      The case of the complainant is that the mobile phone in question was handed over to OP No.2 twice with the problem of automatic shutdown and network dropping but it was giving the same problems despite its repairs. He averred that on 12.05.2015, the officials of OP No.2 handed over the phone by stating that the main board has been changed and as such he asked them to show the faulty part as a proof but they refused to do stating that it was against the company policy.  It is the case of the complainant that at the time of handing over of the phone by OP No.2, the battery of the phone was drained and hence he could not check the phone at the spot and this fact was endorsed by him at the bottom of the job sheet. He further submitted that after checking the phone at his premises, he was found that the same was still giving the same problems and as such he requested OP No.2 to repair the same but it flatly refused to repair within the warranty period on the ground that the repair would be chargeable despite the fact that the same was under warranty.
7.      On the other hand, the case of OP No.1 is that on the second time i.e. 05.05.2015 when the complainant approached the OP No.2 with the problem in the mobile handset, the PCB of the same was changed free of costs under warranty and the problem reported was resolved and the same was handed over to him. It was the case of the OP No.2 that the faulty part becomes the property of the OPs and is never handed over to the customer.  The OP No.2 claimed that the complainant is free to make noting/endorsement on the job card but same did not imply any acknowledgement as to its correctness by the OPs.  It was argued on behalf of OP No.2 that  the warranty of the phone expired on 09.05.2014 and after 12.05.2015 no complaint was lodged by the complainant regarding the phone.  In the end, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint was made.
8.      After going through the entire evidence on record, we are of the considered view that the complaint is liable to be accepted for the reasons recorded hereinafter. It is evident from Annexure C-3 that the complainant had handed over the mobile phone, in question, to OP No.2 on the second time i.e. 05.05.2015 and the same was under warranty. The plea of the complainant is that on 12.05.2015 when the phone in question was handed over to him by OP No.2 after its repairs, the same could not be checked at the spot as the battery was drained and he made a specific endorsement in this regard on the job sheet (Annexure C-3) itself. On the other hand, the stand of the OP No.2 is that the complainant is free to make noting/endorsement on the job card but same does not imply any acknowledgement as to its correctness by the OPs. However, we are not impressed with this plea of OP No.2 because it was its prime duty to handover mobile phone in the functional order and to satisfy the customer regarding its functioning after its repairs. In case, the battery of the complainant was drained then OP No.2 could have easily provided him the stand-by battery to check the mobile phone in question but it did not do so meaning thereby that the mobile phone in question was not functioning properly. Had OP No.2 delivered the handset after satisfying the complainant about its functioning then the position would have certainly been different?   Moreover if the service center had changed the faulty part then there should not be any hitch for it to show the faulty part of the mobile to the complainant even though it became its property.  The OPs despite its repeated efforts failed to rectify the defect in the mobile phone in question. It seems that the mobile phone in question is suffering from some major defect and the same cannot be rectified by effecting the repairs. We are of the considered view that the OPs cannot be allowed to wriggle out from its liability on the vague plea that warranty of the mobile phone in question stood expired on 09.05.2015 especially when the same was handed over to it on 05.05.2015. Thus, the Opposite Parties are deficient in rendering the service to the promised services to the complainant.
9.      In view of the above discussion, the present complaint deserves to be partly allowed and the same is accordingly allowed. The opposite parties are directed as under :-

1. To refund the price of the mobile phone i.e. Rs.12,390/- to the complainant. 
2. To pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant.
3. To pay Rs.3,500/- 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.

10.      Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

24/09/2015

Sd/-

(RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER