Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/26/2015

Miss Rajni Chauhan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Managing Director Lenovo India Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Jasdev.S.Thind

07 Aug 2015

ORDER

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

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

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/26/2015
Date  of  Institution	:	15/01/2015
Date   of   Decision	:	07/08/2015

 

 

 

 

 

Rajni Chauhan d/o Sh. B.S. Chauhan, resident of House No. 41, Subhash Nagar, Manimajra, Chandigarh.

 

…............ Complainant.

 

Vs

 

1.   Managing Director, Lenovo India Private Limited, Vatika Business Park, 1^st Floor, Badashahpur Road, Sector 49, Gurgaon – 122018.

 

2.   Himalaya Photo Store, SCO 1032-33, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh.

 

3.   HCL Info System, SCO 66-67, 2^nd Floor, Sector 17, Chandigarh.

….......... Opposite Parties 

 

BEFORE:   MRS.SURJEET KAUR             PRESIDING MEMBER

          SH. SURESH KUMAR SARDANA     MEMBER

 

For Complainant	:	Sh. J.S. Thind, Advocate.
For OP No.1	:	Sh. V.K. Tripathi, Advocate
For OPs NO.2 & 3	:	Ex-parte.

 

PER SURJEET KAUR, PRESIDING MEMBER

 

 

          Succinctly put, the Complainant had purchased one Lenovo K900 mobile handset on 15.01.2014 from Opposite Party No.2, for Rs.25,700/-, vide retail invoice Annex.C-1, for presenting it to her father on his birthday. It has been alleged that soon after it’s purchased, when the said mobile developed heating and storage problems, the Complainant took it to Opposite Party No.3 on 28.8.2014, who repaired and returned the same to her. But despite repairs, the problem was not solved and again the mobile was taken to Opposite Party No.3 on 15.9.2014. However, when after repairing mobile handset twice in a very short span of time, the problems were still there, the Complainant requested the Opposite Parties to replace the mobile handset in question, but to no avail. Eventually, she got served a legal notice dated 10.12.2014 upon the Opposite Parties, but the same failed to fructify. Hence, alleging the aforesaid act & conduct of the Opposite Parties as deficiency in service, the Complainant has filed the present Complaint.

 

2.      Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case. However, since nobody appeared on behalf of Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 despite service, therefore, they were proceeded ex-parte on 21.04.2015.

 

3.      Opposite Party No.1 in its written statement while admitting the factual matrix of the case has pleaded that after using the phone for nearly 07 months flawlessly, the Complainant logged her first Complaint on 19.8.2014 with an issue of ‘Data not saved’, which was rectified and the phone was working fine. Denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service on its part, Opposite Party No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint. The two service reports dated 28.8.2014 and 15.9.2014 are annexed as Exhibit-D. The mobile phone of the Complainant was serviced by the answering Opposite Party as and when he approached the Service Centre as per warranty terms and conditions. It has been asserted that the interim reply was sent to the Complainant’s note on 27.01.2015. Denying all the material allegations of the complainant and pleading that there has been no deficiency in service on its part and prayer for dismissal of the complaint with costs has been made.

 

4.      Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

5.      We have heard the learned Counsel for the Opposite Party No.1 and also perused the record, along with the written arguments filed on behalf of the Complainant.

 

6.      It is evident from Annexure C-1, coupled with the affidavit of the Complainant that she purchased one Lenovo K900 mobile handset from Opposite Party No. 2, on 15.01.2014, for Rs.25,700/-, with one year warranty. The case of the Complainant is that the handset got defective on 28.8.2014 and the repair was carried out by Opposite Party No.3, but the problem could not be solved and again on 15.09.2014 the handset in question was deposited with Opposite Party No.3, with the same fault. According to the Complainant, reoccurrence of the faults in the mobile handset, within a short span of seven months, points out towards manufacturing defect therein. Annexure C-2 is the photocopy of the legal notice served upon the Opposite Parties by the Complainant regarding her grievance. 

 

7.      The stand taken by the Opposite Party No.1 is that whenever the Complainant approached the Service Centre for the necessary repairs, the appropriate action was taken and every time the handset was returned to the Complainant after proper repairs keeping the mobile handset in good working condition. Exhibit-C and Exhibit-D dated 19.8.2014, 28.8.2014 and 15.9.2014 have been placed on record by the Opposite Party No.1, which are the service records, with the mention of same problems i.e. “Heating Issue” and “Data can’t be saved”.

 

8.      It is important to note here that Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 have not appeared to contest the claim of the Complainant and preferred to proceed ex-parte which draws an adverse inference against them. The evidence of the Complainant has gone unrebutted against Opposite Parties.

 

9.      After careful perusal of the file, it is quite clear that the handset in question worked flawlessly for seven months, without any Complaint. Exhibit-C and Exhibit-D are the service records, placed on record by the Opposite Party No.1 itself, showing that the fault once reported could not rectified completely by its Service Engineers. This points out towards the poor quality of the product and further, poor service rendered by the Service Engineers of the Opposite Party No.1 to the Complainant towards the repair of her defective mobile handset.

 

10.      Undoubtedly, the Complainant has spent hefty amount of Rs.25,700/- to purchase the brand mobile having faith in the brand to facilitate herself and not for moving the Service Centre and then to this Forum for justice in the absence of proper service provided by the Opposite Parties. Therefore, the act of the Opposite Parties in not rectifying the defective mobile handset that too within the warranty period proves deficiency in service on their part, which certainly has caused immense, mental and physical harassment to the complainant.

 

11.      In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Parties are found deficient in giving proper service to the complainant. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Parties, and the same is allowed, qua them. The Opposite Parties are directed, jointly and severally, to:-
    1. To replace the defective mobile handset of the Complainant with a brand new one of the same make, model and configuration, with fresh warranty.
    2. To pay Rs.7,000/- as compensation for mental agony & harassment suffered by the complainant;
    3. To pay Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation.

 

12.      This order be complied with by the opposite parties, within 30 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the Opposite Parties shall be liable to refund the cost price of the mobile handset i.e. Rs.25,700/-, as well as compensation amount of Rs.7,000/- along with interest @12% p.a. from the date of filing of the present complaint, till realization, besides payment of litigation costs.

 

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

Announced

07^th August, 2015                                           

Sd/-

 (SURJEET KAUR)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)                                                                                                      MEMBER