Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/283/2015

Kulwinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Lenovo Service Center - Opp.Party(s)

K.L. Saini

28 Aug 2015

ORDER

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

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

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/283/2015
Date  of  Institution	:	12/05/2015
Date   of   Decision	:	28/08/2015

 

 

 

 

 

Kulwinder Singh son of Shiv Ram, resident of House No.2193/21, Pipliwala Town, Manimajra, Chandigarh.

 

….Complainant

Vs.

 

1.   Lenovo Service Centre, SCO 66-67, Second Floor, Sector 17-A, Chandigarh, through its Manager.

 

2.   National Watch House, SCO 1031, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh, through its Proprietor.

…… Opposite Parties  

 

 

BEFORE:   SH. P.L. AHUJA               PRESIDENT

MRS.SURJEET KAUR             MEMBER

          SH. SURESH KUMAR SARDANA     MEMBER

 

 

For Complainant	:	Sh. K.L. Saini, Advocate
For OPs	:	Ex-parte.

 

PER SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, MEMBER

 

 

 

          In brief, the Complainant had purchased one Lenovo S-850 mobile handset, on 25.8.2014, from Opposite Party No.2, for Rs.15,000/-, with two years guarantee, vide bill Annexure C-1. It has been alleged that after two days of its purchase, the said mobile handset started creating problems and was accordingly taken to Opposite Party No.1 (Authorized Service Centre), for repairs. It has been averred that Opposite Party No.1 repaired the handset and returned it back to the Complainant, but even thereafter, the Complainant found that there were network & shutting down problems in the same. Accordingly, on 24.9.2014, the Complainant again approached the Opposite Party No.1 vide job-sheet Annexure C-2. This time, Opposite Party No.1 again repaired the handset and returned it to the Complainant. It has been alleged that soon after mobile handset in question again stopped working properly as the same problems reoccurred. Thereafter, on 13.10.2014, the Complainant again deposited the mobile handset with Opposite Party No.1 vide job-sheet Annexure C-3. It has been averred that this time, Opposite Party No.1 after thoroughly inspecting the handset, told the Complainant that it would replace it with a new phone. Thereafter, the Complainant requested the Opposite Party No.1 umpteen number of times to replace his defective mobile handset, but to no avail. When all the frantic efforts made by the Complainant, failed to fructify, as a measure of last resort, he got served a legal notice dated 20.10.2014 upon the Opposite Parties (Annexure C-4) and only thereafter in the month of March, 2015, the Opposite Party No.1 returned the mobile handset to the Complainant after a period of about four months. A copy of the reply to the legal notice is at Annexure C-5 & C-6. It has been alleged that after receiving the mobile phone, the Complainant checked it, and found that the mobile was still creating same problems. Accordingly, he again visited the Opposite Party No.1 vide job-sheet Annexure C-7, but all in vain. Therefore, alleging the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties as 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.1 & 2 despite service, therefore, they were proceeded ex-parte on 04.08.2015.

 

3.     Complainant led evidence.

 

 

4.     We have heard the learned Counsel for the Complainant and have also perused the record.   

 

5.     In the present case, the averments of the complaint have gone unrebutted in the absence of the Opposite Parties who were duly served and preferred neither to appear in person, nor through their Counsel. It is established beyond all reasonable doubt that the complaint of the Complainant is genuine. The harassment suffered by the Complainant in visiting the Authorized Service Centre (Opposite Party No.1) for a number of times, to get his mobile handset repaired, is also writ large. The Opposite Party No.1 neither rectified the defects in the mobile handset despite repeated endeavors, nor did it replace the defective handset with a new one. Thus, finding a definite deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party No.1, we have no other alternative, but to allow the present complaint against it alone.

 

6.     Since the Complainant has not impleaded the Manufacturer as a party, hence the replacement/ refund for the mobile handset cannot be ordered by this Forum.

 

7.     In the light of above observations, the present complaint succeeds against the Opposite Party No.1. The same is allowed. We direct the Opposite Party No.1 to:- 

 

[a]  To repair the defective mobile handset of the Complainant and hand it over to the Complainant, in perfect working order, with an extension of warranty by one year;

 

[b]  Pay Rs.5,500/- on account of deficiency in service and causing mental and physical harassment to the Complainant; 

 

[c] Pay Rs.5,500/- towards costs of litigation;

 

 

          The Complaint fails against Opposite Party No.2.

 

 

8.     This order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Party No.1; thereafter, it shall be liable for an interest @12% p.a. on the amount mentioned in sub-para [b] above from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid, besides complying with the directions as in sub-para [a] & [c] above.      

 

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

Announced

28^th August, 2015                                         

Sd/-

(P.L. AHUJA)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(SURJEET KAUR)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)

MEMBER

 “Dutt”