Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/414/2016

Amit Kapoor - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

In Person

07 Dec 2016

ORDER

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

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

Consumer Complaint  No	:	414 of 2016
Date  of  Institution	:	13.06.2016
Date   of   Decision	:	07.12.2016

 

 

 

 

Amit Kapoor s/o Sh.Chander Mohan Kapoor, R/o House No.116, Sector 18-C, Chandigarh.

             …………..Complainant

 

Versus

 

1]  Lenovo India Pvt. Ltd., Regd. Office: Vatika Business Park, 1^st Floor, Badshah Pur Road, Sector 49, Sohana Road, Gurgaon 122001, through its Managing Director

 

2]  The Manager, Flipkart Internet Private Limited, Vaishnavi Summit, Ground Floor, 7^th Main, 80 Feet Road, 3^rd Block, Koramangala Industrial Layout, Bangaloe 560034, Karnataka, India.

 

3]  The Lenovo Service Center, B2x-003, Sant Rameshwari Enterprises, SCO No.26, Sector 20-D, Chandigarh through its Manager.

 

 

 …………… Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  SH. RAJAN DEWAN           PRESIDENT

                                MRS. PRITI MALHOTRA       MEMBER

SH.RAVINDER SINGH          MEMBER

           

 

Argued By: Complainant in person.

Sh.Pankaj Khullar, proxy counsel for Sh.Ashim Aggarwal, counsel for OP No.1

Sh.Devinder Kumar, Counsel for OP-2.

OP No.3 exparte.

 

 

PER RAVINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

                                 The facts in issue are that the complainant purchased a mobile handset make Lenovo A7000-a IN 8G BL for Rs.9089/- on 17.6.2015 from OP NO.2 online.  It is stated that the said mobile started giving problem of hanging, problem in making and receiving calls, after 5-6 months of its purchase, so it was taken to Authorised Service Centre/OP NO.3 on 12.1.2016, who replaced its charger with new one and returned the mobile set.  The handset again gave problem, so it was again taken to OP NO.3 on 26.2.2016, who changed its software and also repaired its Mother Board and Touch Screen and returned the same after repairs on 29.2.2016, but after few day i.e. on 7.3.2016, the mobile handset again started giving the same problem.  The complainant again submitted the mobile handset with OP NO.3 on 7.3.2016 for repairs. Thereafter, again the complainant took the mobile handset to OP No.3 on 16.5.2016 for repairs, but still it was giving problem.  It is also submitted that the complainant being not satisfied with the repair of the mobile phone and non-working of mobile phone properly, requested the OPs numerous time to replace, but to no result.  Therefore, the complainant sent legal notice, but to no avail.  Hence, this complaint.  

 

2]       The OP No.1 has filed reply and stated that the problems that were reported by the complainant were duly rectified, free of cost, under warranty on all occasions.  It is also stated that the mobile being a complex electronic device is prone to software/hardware problem and it is precisely due to such fact that warranty is offered for 1 year. It is further stated that the problem in handset arose after approximately 7 months of purchase, so it is implied that there is no manufacturing defect in the handset. 

 

         The OP NO.2 has also filed reply stating that it provides online marketplace/platform over internet through its website www.flipkart.com and its involvement is that of an intermediary only to provide an online platform and facilitate the entire transaction of sale and purchase of goods whereas the answering Opposite Party is not engaged in selling of any goods on its own.  It is also stated that the complainant approached the seller of the product, who replaced the mobile phone which was subsequently delivered to the complainant on 26.6.2015 with IMEI No.866225029371966. It is further stated that the main allegations are against manufacturer and its service centre.  Denying rest of the allegations, it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed qua OP No.2.

         Opposite Party NO.3 did not appear despite notice, hence was proceeded exparte vide order dated 25.7.2016.

3]       The complainant also filed replication reiterating contentions as raised in the complaint.

 

4]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

5]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have examined the entire evidence & documents on record thoroughly.

 

6]       The evidence on record reveals that the mobile handset purchased by the complainant on 17.6.2015 bearing IMEI/Serial No.867626020482869 was replaced on his request with new mobile handset on 26.6.2015 bearing IMEI/Serial No. 866225029371966. 

 

7]       The complaint of the complainant regarding faults in the mobile handset admittedly   was duly attended to by OPs, through their authorised service centre i.e. Opposite Party NO.3 at Chandigarh, from time to time, within the warranty period, free of cost.  As per record, there is no report of Service Centre/OP No.3 about their ability to repair the mobile handset in question.  Rather, the mobile handset has been duly repaired and returned to the complainant and there was no complaint from the complainant report to the Service Centre after 16.5.2016.

 

8]       In the facts & circumstances as explicit from the pleadings and evidence on record, the complainant has purchased the telephone on 17.6.2015 and same worked well with him and first time he reported some fault with OPs only on 12.1.2016, which explicitly prove that there seems to be no manufacturing defect in the mobile handset in question.  The faults, if any, occurred, are normal as any electronic/mechanical device is prone to such problems during the course of normal use by any individual. 

 

9]       Because of rapid pioneering advancement of technology, highly sophisticated, equipped with latest software features, new electronics gadgets/telephones have come up and available in market, which require proficiency on the part of users also for its optimum use.  People without any experience and knowledge about operating process of an electronic gadget often try for new products with extra new features.  More often such mis-adventures on the part of an individual, who without acquainting themselves with even the instructions and guidelines regarding use of electronic product starts try to use same, which lead to many defects/problems in the gadget/equipment.

 

10]      The mobile telephone device Android, iPhone/Windows phones have their own unique technical features which warrants due care and caution on the part of user with skill/experience for proper use. The working of telephone mobile set is also dependent upon effective networking/proper connectivity by telecom service provided besides skill of user. For any trivial complaint without any proven manufacturing defect in these devises, the manufacturer cannot be held to be guilty.  

 

11]      The OPs have attended the complaints of the complainant regarding the mobile handset from time to time as envisage under the terms & conditions of the warranty.  The complainant has purchased the mobile handset in question on 17.6.2015 and filed the instant complaint on 13.6.2016 for refund of the amount i.e. after using the mobile handset for almost one year, thus, the prayer of the complainant cannot be acceded to.  The complaint lacks merit and therefore, the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.

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

Announced

7^th December, 2016                           Sd/-

(RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

 (PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER