Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/793/2015

Gurpinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Lenovo India - Opp.Party(s)

Daljit Singh

20 Jun 2016

ORDER

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

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

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/793/2015
Date  of  Institution	:	30/11/2015
Date   of   Decision	:	20/06/2016

 

 

 

 

 

Gurpinder Singh S/o S.Gurcharan Singh, resident of House No.312, Sector 45-A, Chandigarh.

 …………… Complainant.

Vs

 

(1)  Lenovo India, through its Managing Director/ Authorized Signatory having its Registered Office at Ferns Icon, Level-2, Doddenakund Village, Marathhalli Outer Ring Road, Marathhalli Post, Kr Puram Hobli, Bangalore – 560037.

 

     IInd Address:

 

Lenovo India Pvt. Limited, Vatika Business Park, First Floor, Badshahpur Road, Sector 49, Gurgaon – 122001.

 

(2)  Sant Rameshwari Enterprises, being the Authorized Service Centre of Lenovo India (Mobiles), through its Managing Director/Authorized Signatory having its Office at SCO 26, 1^st Floor, Sector 20-D, Chandigarh – 160020.

 

(3)  Anmol Watches and Electronics Pvt. Limited, through its Managing Director/ Authorized Signatory having its registered office at SCO No.1012-13, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh.

……………  Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:    DR. MANJIT SINGH                PRESIDENT

           SH.SURESH KUMAR SARDANA         MEMBER

 

For Complainant	:	Sh. Daljit Singh, Advocate.
For OP No.1	:	Sh. Ashim Aggarwal, Advocate.
For OP Nos.2 & 3	:	Ex-parte.

 

PER SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, MEMBER

 

 

          The succinct facts of the present Complaint are that the Complainant purchased a Lenovo Vibe X2 Gold mobile handset for a sum of Rs.16,100/- from Opposite Party No.3 on 16.06.2015 vide invoice/bill Annexure C-1. Soon after its purchase, the Complainant faced problems with regard to its network, display/ touch screen as well as power on/off issues. Besides this, the Complainant also faced problems while playing music as the icons were sideways whereas in normal handset they are in the middle and the screen of the mobile handset was cutting from its left side and was not coming entirely. Accordingly, the Complainant reported the aforesaid issues to the Opposite Party No.2 on 07.08.2015 vide job sheet Annexure C-2, who after repairing the handset delivered it back to the Complainant on 24.08.2015. However, to the utter dismay of the Complainant, the mobile handset was still suffering from the same issues despite repairs done by Opposite Party No.2. Hence, the Complainant on the very next day again approached the Opposite Party No.2 vide job sheet dated 25.08.2015 (Annexure C-3) for resolving the issues. It has been alleged that after retaining the handset for repairs, Opposite Party No.2 delivered the same to the Complainant on 03.09.2015. This time too the Complainant faced the same problems of display and power on/off. As such, on 05.09.2015, the Complainant again approached the Opposite Party No.2 for resolving the problems faced by him. It has been averred that from 05.09.2015 till the date of filing of the present Complaint the mobile handset is lying with the Opposite Party No.2 for repairs and they were unable to repair the same. The Complainant was forced to use a loaner handset, which was of a quality inferior to which he has purchased. Moreover, the loaner handset does not contain the features for which the Complainant purchased the mobile handset. With the cup of woes brimming, the Complainant has filed the instant consumer complaint, alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties.

 

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 & 3 despite service, therefore, they were proceeded ex-parte on 26.02.2016.

 

3.      Opposite Party No.1, in its reply, has pleaded that the first problem was reported by the Complainant after nearly 2 months i.e. on 07.08.2015. The same was duly resolved, free of cost, under warranty and the Complainant collected the handset on 24.08.2015. It has been admitted that problem of power on/off was reported on 25.08.2015 and to avoid any kind of inconvenience, the Complainant was given an interim/standby handset, till such time his handset was repaired. On 05.09.2015 the Complainant reported the problem of display-external, which was resolved by replacing the rear cover & PCB and the handset was made ready. It has been asserted that the Complainant was duly informed to collect the repaired handset. However, till date, the Complainant has not collected the mobile which is lying in repaired/ working condition with the Service Centre, despite repeated requests. The Complainant is using the loaner handset and the same has not been returned to the Opposite Parties. All other allegations made in the Complaint have been denied and pleading that there was no deficiency in service on their part, Opposite Parties have 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 parties and have perused the record. 

 

6.      The main grievance of the Complainant is that the mobile handset purchased by him started giving problems within two months of its purchase. Even after first repair, the mobile handset was still giving problems and was returned to the Opposite Parties for repair. The Opposite Parties gave a loaner handset to the Complainant for use, till such time the handset was repaired. As per the Complainant, he received the call in the month of April, 2016 for collection of the repaired handset, and return of the loaner handset in his possession. As per the Complainant since a lot of delay took place, hence the grievance.

 

7.      After giving our anxious consideration in the light of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the Complaint, in conjunction with the submissions/ contentions made by the Complainant, we are of the view that during the period mobile handset was not functional, the Complainant was given a loaner handset, which he had accepted, without any protest. When the handset was ready after necessary repairs, the Complainant had failed to collect the same from the Opposite Parties. Hence, the Opposite Parties cannot be held liable either for deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part.  

 

8.      For the reasons recorded above, we do not find any merit in the complaint and the same is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

 

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

Announced

20^th June, 2016                                         

Sd/-

[DR.MANJIT SINGH]

PRESIDENT

                                               

     

Sd/-                               

[SURESH KUMAR SARDANA]                                                                                                   

“Dutt”