Delhi

West Delhi

CC/16/820

AKASH VATS - Complainant(s)

Versus

LENOVO - Opp.Party(s)

30 Jan 2019

ORDER

 

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (WEST)

         150-151; COMMUNINTY CENTER ; C-BLOCK; JANAK PURI; NEW DELHI

CASE NO.  820/16

AKASH VATS

RZ-60161, B-BLOCK,

OLD ROSHAN PURA,

NAJAFGARH, NEW DELHI-43

 

VERSUS

1. SERVICE CENTER LENOVO

TILAK NAGAR, NEW DELHI-18                                                                                                      

 

 

2. LENOVO COMPANY, HEAD OFFICE

VATKLA BUSINESS PARK, 1^ST FLOOR,

BADSHAH PUR ROAD, SEC-49,

SOHNA ROAD-122001

                                     

O R D E R

PUNEET LAMBA, MEMBER

The complainant has filed the present complaint against the O.P under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The brief facts as stated by the complainant  are that he purchased one mobile handset which developed fault and stopped working on 11.11.2016 and the same was submitted to the authorized service center of the OP. It is alleged even after 15 days the handset was not repaired and returned. The complainant visited several times and every time it is told by OP to come again after 4-5 days. It is alleged that without phone the work of the complainant is being affected and he faced many problems. It is alleged that during demonetization the complainant faced problems as all transaction were effected through online and the complainant had to purchase a new handset. Hence the present complaint for directions to the OPs refund a sum of Rs.13,500/- cost of handset and also prayed for compensation.        

   After notice OP-2 appeared and filed reply to the complaint taking preliminary objections that the complaint is false, frivolous and baseless and  asserted that as and when the complaint was lodged by the complainant the grievance of the complainant was redressed by the authorized service center of OP-2. It is asserted that the handset of the complainant has been thoroughly examined and software was upgraded free of cost as per the terms of warranty and the handset is ready for the delivery but the complainant is not taking the delivery of the handset. It is asserted that the allegations are an after thought with the intention to harass and gain monetary advantage from OP-2 It is further alleged that as per the warranty terms and condition warranty the OP-2 is only required to repair the handset and if repair is not possible then the unit may be replaced. It is submitted that the handset has been rectified after upgrading the software and the complainant is not entitled for the refund of cost of the mobile handset. It is further asserted that as good will gesture, the OP-2 has also offered two months warranty extension along with the repaired handset. On merits it is asserted that the handset in dispute was submitted on 11.11.2016 to the authorized service center of OP-2 vide job sheet no. SRB2XO321611110014 with issue of power off and on. It is averred that the handset was thoroughly examined and necessary rectification  on software up gradation were done within warranty free of cost. But despite notice to the complainant to collect the handset the complaint is not collecting the same. It is averred that there is no deficiency in service on part of OP-2 and the complainant is not entitled for the relief he claimed. Hence prayed for the dismissal of the claim. Despite notice OP-1 choose not to appear and was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 24.10.2017. Rejoinder to reply of OP-2 filed reiterating contents of the complaint and controverting the stand taken by the OP-2.  

When the parties were asked to lead evidence, the complainant testified the contents of the complaint on oath. He also relied on invoice no. KABLR6144105041-13735638 and job sheet dated  11.11.2016 and email dated 03.12.2016. The OP also filed affidavit of Shri Mr. Shankar Narayanan Prakash AR for OP-2 reaffirming the facts stated in the reply and the controverting stand taken by the complainant. It also filed terms and condition of warranty and engineer report dated 30.12.2016. Written argument are also filed by the OP-2.   

We have heard complainant in person and  M/S Rachna Bahudar Ld. counsel for OP-2 and have gone through the material on record   carefully and thoroughly.  

The main controversy is whether the complainant is entitled  for the relief he claimed. It is admitted that the complainant purchased mobile handset and had given for repairs to OP-1 authorized service center of OP-2. The only issue is whether the handset was repaired and information thereof was given to the complainant. During the course of arguments counsel for OP-2 was confronted with the issue whether notice or information was given to the complainant to collect repaired handset.  The counsel for OP-2 in all fairness submitted that the complainant was telephonically informed several times but he refused to collect the handset for the reasons best known to him. The complainant rebutted these allegations and stated he was never informed about the status of handset whereas he several time approached OP-1 to know the status of handset and on one pretext or the another he was told to come after 4-5 days and he submitted that he has also written email about his grievance to OP-2 where they have assured to resolve his issue.         

From the perusal of the job sheet it reveals that the expected date of delivery was within 08 to 10 days but even after approximately 22 days the complainant was writing to OP-2 to redress his grievance. The complainant’s version that the mobile was necessary during the time of demonization also holds water. OP-2 failed to substantiate its version that the complainant was informed to collect the repair handset which shows that the OPs are deficient in providing services as per the terms and condition of warranty. The OP-2 in its affidavit deposed that they are ready to provide 3 months warranty extension as good will gestures which shows the OP has failed to provide the services and trying to compensate the complainant. The complainant is able to substantiate his version through sufficient evidence on record.  We are of considered view that Ops-1 and 2 failed to honour the terms and condition of warranty and therefore are deficient in services and are liable for the same. From the perusal of the documents it reveals that the complainant has satisfactorily used the handset for approximately six months and first complaint was made on 11.11.2016. 

 In view of above discussion and observation we direct OPs to refund a sum of Rs. 10,000/- depreciated cost of the mobile handset as the complaint has already used it for six months without any problem and we also award compensation of Rs. 2,000/- for mental agony and harassment. The order be complied within 45 days from receipt of the order. In case of default of payment in time the OP shall be liable to pay interest @ 6% P.A. from the date of filing of the complaint  till actual realization. 

Copy of order be sent to the parties as per rules and file be consigned to record room.                              

 

 (PUNEET LAMBA)                                                            (K.S. MOHI)                                                                       

     Member                                                                             President