Delhi

East Delhi

CC/592/2016

SUBHASH - Complainant(s)

Versus

LENOVO INDIA - Opp.Party(s)

12 May 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. No.592/2016

 

	SUBHASH PURI S/O SHRI KAILASH PURI, R/O. A-148, BLOCK –A, NEW ASHOK NAGAR, DELHI	….Complainant
Versus
1	M/S LENOVO INDIA PVT. LTD. BRANCH OFFICE VATIKA BUSINESS PARK 1ST FLOOR, BADSHAHPUR ROAD, SECTOR-49, SOHNA ROAD, GURGAON,	……OP1
2	SANTOSH ELECTRONICS & TELECOM CENTER, A-494, NEAR SHIV MANDIR, NEW ASHOK NAGAR, DELHI	……OP2

 

 

Date of Institution	:	08.11.2016
Judgment Reserved on	:	12.05.2023
Judgment Passed on	:	12.05.2023

               

QUORUM:

 

Sh. S.S. Malhotra	(President)
Ms. Rashmi Bansal	(Member)
Sh. Ravi Kumar	(Member)

Order By: Shri S.S. Malhotra (President)

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

1. By this order the Commission shall dispose off the present complaint filed by the Complainant w.r.t. not giving services to the complainant with regard to the sold Mobile Phone.    
2. Brief facts as stated by the complainant in the complaint are that he purchased one Mobile Phone from OP2 i.e. Lenovo A319  on 29.08.2015 (incorrectly written as 29.08.2016) and within two months it showed a problem of automatically ‘switching off’ and when complaint was made the same was rectified.  The same problem again occurred on 09.12.2016 (appear to be incorrectly written) and 12.02.2016 and the same was rectified by rebooting the phone but when it was taken for fourth time OP2 demanded Rs.3,500/- by stating that the Mobile Phone is corrupt and thereafter various e-mails were exchanged but the Mobile Phone was not rectified despite the product was within Warranty Period and he has prayed that OP be directed to give a new Mobile Phone along with compensation of Rs.20,000/- and Rs.10,000/- for litigation expenses. 
3. Before coming to the Written Statement, it is a matter of record that OP3 was deleted by the complainant on 13.07.2017 and OP2 was proceeded Ex-parte vide Order dated 17.09.2018.  It is also brought on record that the cause title shows the name of the parties only as per amended Memo of Parties i.e. OP1 and OP2. 
4. OP1 has filed its reply inter alia stating that complaint is not maintainable as there is no cause of action in favour of the complainant or against the OP1 as the complainant was attended as and when he approached and his complaint was redressed and as far as the approaching by complainant to the OP for the fourth time, it is submitted that the service Centre engineer observed that the Mobile Phone has been found to be damaged by ‘non-authorized service provider’ which is a customer induced issue (CID issue) and therefore the warranty has lapse and the repair was asked to be done on the chargeable basis to which the complainant did not agree and as such there is no deficiency of service on the part of OPs. 
5. Complainant has filed Rejoinder and has filed his evidence. 
6. OP1 has filed evidence of Sh. Shanker Narayan Prakash, the Technical Manager of OP1. 
7. The Commission has heard the arguments and perused the record. 
8. Purchasing of Mobile Phone by Complainant and its getting out of order for three times is not disputed.  Issue for the fourth time is that as per the complainant, it has the same problem where as contention of the OP1 is that the warranty had lapsed on account of outside intervention and therefore it was chargeable. 
9. As far as the fault is concerned the same is not disputed and the only issue is that whether the Mobile Phone was repaired by some agency other than the Authorized Service Centre or not.  The onus of this issue falls upon the OPs.  Commission has enquired from the Counsel for the OP1 as to whether it has any document to prove the contention that the Mobile Phone was got repaired/damaged by some outside agency but counsel for OP1 stated in the Commission that neither there is any such document available nor there is any report of the technician to that effect.  Hence, the OPs have not been able to prove its contention that the Mobile Phone was got repaired from some unauthorized centre and therefore demanding Rs.3,500/- by the OPs amounts to unfair trade practice on the part of OP and also deficiency in service. 
10. Accordingly, the Commission is of the opinion that complainant has been able to prove that Mobile Phone provided to the complainant was not properly repaired which amounts to deficiency in service by the OPs jointly and severally.  Since, the Mobile Phone is in the possession of the complainant and he has used it for a substantive period, the Commission is of the opinion that refund of 100% amount would not be in the interest of justice and orders as follows:

• OPs would jointly and severally pay Rs.3000/- i.e. 50% of the value of the phone along with compensation of Rs.2500/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing the complaint.  The Product would be returned by the complainant to OP.    

This order be complied with within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order.

Copy of the order be supplied / sent to the parties free of cost as per rules.

File be consigned to Record Room. 

Announced on 12.05.2023.