Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/240/2015

Sunaina Jain - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

In person

18 Sep 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/240/2015
Date  of  Institution	:	20/04/2015
Date   of   Decision	:	18/09/2015

 

 

 

 

 

Sunaina Jain wife of Sh. Vineet Jain, resident of House No.87, Shivalik Enclave, NAC, Manimajra, Chandigarh.

 

….Complainant

Vs.

 

1.   Lenovo India Pvt. Limited, through its Managing Director/ Proprietor/ Authorized Signatory having its office at Vatlka Business Park, 1^st Floor, Badshahpur Road, Sector 49, Sohna Road, Gurgaon – 122001.

 

2.   HCL Infosystems Limited (Authorized Service Centre of Lenovo India Pvt. Limited), through its Proprietor/ Manager/ Authorized Signatory, having office at SCO 66-67, Second Floor, Sector 17-A, Chandigarh.

 

3.   WS Retail Services Private Limited (Retailer of Lenovo India), Bilaspur Pataudi Road, Near Bilaspur Chowk at NH 8, Opposite TATA Service Centre, Bilaspur, Haryana, India – 122413, through its Proprietor/ Manager.

 

…… Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:   SH. P.L. AHUJA               PRESIDENT

MRS.SURJEET KAUR             MEMBER

          SH. SURESH KUMAR SARDANA     MEMBER

 

For Complainant	:	Sh. Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate.
For OP No.1	:	Sh. Ashim Aggarwal, Advocate.
For OP No.2	:	Ex-parte.
For OP No.3	:	Ex-parte.

 

PER SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, MEMBER

 

 

 

          Tersely, the facts and material, culminating in the commencement, relevant for the disposal of the instant Consumer Complaint and emanating from the record are that, the Complainant purchased one Lenovo mobile handset from Opposite Party No.3 on 10.3.2014 through Flipkart.com, with one year warranty. The said handset was not working properly and was always causing recurrent problems due to which it had been constantly shown/sent for repairs to Opposite Party No.2, who failed to repair the handset to the satisfaction of the Complainant. It has been alleged that out of 9 months since the purchase, the handset remained with the Service Centre () for more than 5 months, without the desired results. Eventually, upon the inability shown by the Opposite Party No.2 to rectify the defects in the handset, when the Complainant requested for replacement, the same was refused.     When all the frantic efforts made by the Complainant, failed to fructify, as a measure of last resort, alleging that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties tantamount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the Complainant has filed the instant Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, seeking various reliefs.  

   

2.     Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties, seeking their version of the case. However, nobody appeared on behalf of Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 despite service, therefore, they were proceeded ex-parte on 01.06.2015 and 14.07.2015 respectively.  

 

3.     Opposite Party No.1 in its reply, while admitting the factual aspects of the case, has pleaded that the mobile phone was repaired to the satisfaction of the Complainant. It has been asserted that the Service Centre duly repaired the mobile phone under warranty free of cost. The first Complaint was reported in May 2014 i.e. more than two months after purchase, which was repaired under warranty. It has been further pleaded that the handset was repaired successfully on each occasion and no problem was reported after 07.01.2015. Merely because phone was serviced few times does not indicate that there was any inherent manufacturing defect. The said defects were duly rectified under warranty. Denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service on its part, answering Opposite Party has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

4.     Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record in support of their contentions.

 

5.     We have heard the learned Counsel for the contesting parties and have perused the record along with the written arguments filed on behalf of both the sides.

 

6.     Annexure A-1 is a collection of various e-mails sent by the Complainant to the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 with her grievance of selling defective handset to her. Vide these e-mails, the Complainant also requested the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 to provide her a new handset of the same model and characteristics. As per the Complainant, the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 neither resolved the issue, nor replaced the defective handset, despite making various unsuccessful attempts to repair the handset.

 

7.     The stand taken by the Opposite Party No.1 is that the handset in question was repaired, as and when brought, to the satisfaction of the Complainant. These defects were duly rectified under warranty free of cost, therefore, the question of its replacement does not arise.

 

8.     The defect(s) within the warranty period are admitted by the Opposite Party No.1. Undoubtedly, the handset was covered under the warranty. According to the Complainant, the handset started giving problems on one account or the other, and out of 9 months since its purchase, the handset remained with the Opposite Party No.2 for more than 5 months, without any fruitful results. As per the affidavit of the Complainant, when the handset was returned to her after the repairs, the same was not repaired properly. Meaning thereby the handset was not made available to the Complainant in the good working condition. Further, Opposite Party No.2 only could clarify the fact regarding the repair of the handset. However, it has not come forward to contest the claim of the Complainant and clarify the situation or to corroborate the defence of Opposite Party No.1, rather it preferred to proceed against ex-parte which draws an adverse inference against it. The evidence of the Complainant has gone unrebutted against Opposite Party No.2.  

 

9.     There is no doubt about the fact that the Complainant has been deprived of the possession of her handset without any fault on her part. Evidently, the Complainant had spent Rs.14,499/- to purchase the handset having faith in the brand to facilitate herself and not for moving the Service Centre and then to this Forum for justice in the absence of proper service provided by the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2. Therefore, the act of the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 in not rectifying the defective handset that too when it is within the warranty period proves deficiency in service on their part, which certainly has caused immense mental and physical harassment to the complainant.

 

 

10.     In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 are deficient in giving proper service to the complainant and having indulged in unfair trade practice. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, and the same is allowed, qua them. The Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 are directed, jointly and severally, to:-

 

[a]  To replace the defective handset of the Complainant with a brand new one of the same make, model and configuration, with fresh warranty.

 

[b]  To pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation for mental agony & harassment suffered by the complainant;

 

[c]  To pay Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation.

 

         The Complaint fails against Opposite Party No.3.

 

11.     This order be complied with by the opposite parties No.1 & 2, within 30 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which they shall be liable to refund the cost price of the mobile handset i.e. Rs.14,499/-, as well as compensation amount of Rs.5,000/- along with interest @12% p.a. from the date of filing of the present complaint, till realization, besides payment of litigation costs as in sub-para [c] above. 

 

12.     The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

18^th September, 2015                                

Sd/-

(P.L. AHUJA)

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

 (SURJEET KAUR)

MEMBER

Sd/-

(SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)

MEMBER