Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/295/2016

Vikas Grover - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Lenovo (India) Private Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

15 Dec 2016

ORDER

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

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	295 of 2016
Date  of  Institution	:	2.5.2016
Date   of   Decision	:	15.12.2016

 

 

 

 

 

Vikas Grover s/o Mr. C.S. Grover R/o Flat No. 239, Tower C8, Gulmohar Trends Housing Societ, Dhakoli, Zirakpur, District SAS Nagar, Zirakpur, Punjab 160401.

                …..Complainant

Versus

 

1.  M/s Lenovo (India) Pvt. Ltd. Ferns Icon, Level 2, Doddenakundi village, Marathahlli outer Ring Road, K.R. Puram Hobli, Banglore 560037, Karnatka India.

2.  M/s B2x Service Solutions India Pvt. Ltd Building No.10,4^th floor Solitare Park, Andheri-Ghatkopar link Road, Andheri East, Mumbai-400093, India.

3.  M/s Sant Rameshhwari Enterprises, SCO No.26, First floor, Sector 20D, Chandigarh through its Proprietor/authorized signatory.

4.  M/s Reliance Retail Ltd. DSS 261, Sector 20, Panchkula Haryana through its proprietor/authorized signatory.

….. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN                 PRESIDENT

         MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA             MEMBER

         SH. RAVINDER SINGH             MEMBER

 

 

For complainant(s)      :     complainant in person.  

 

For OP No.1             :     Sh. Pankaj Khullar, Adv.

 

For OPs No.2,3 & 4      :     ex-parte.

 

 

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

          As per the case, the complainant purchased one Lenovo P 780 handset manufactured by OP No.2 on 3.11.2014 from OP No.4. According to the complainant the said handset started showing sings of technical error with hanging issues and unexpected shut down/restarting. It was submitted to the service centre where a software error was diagnosed and was repaired for the same.  The Phone was returned after a software upgrade on 11.2.2015 with assurance of smooth working but soon after it started showing the same symptoms and had to be submitted to the service centre again. This time again a software upgrade was applied to rectify the errors which ended up with a failed attempt. Thereafter the motherboard of the handset was replaced by the service centre. But even after the hardware replacement again the problem of hanging, slow processing, shutting down and rebooting persisted.

     It is pleaded that thereafter the OPs replaced the handset with a model of lower specification which was a used one and the company assured that it will work fine.  It is alleged that even thereafter the replaced handset started giving problem of hanging and slow processing. The matter was reported to the service centre and requested for replacement but they repaired the handset by replacing its motherboard.  After sometime the replaced handset again gave trouble accordingly the complainant again approached the service centre and asked for replacement or refund and refused for repair of the same. But the OPs neither replaced the same nor refunded the amount. Alleging the said act of OPs as deficiency in service, this compliant has been filed.

 

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 and 4 despite service, therefore, OPs No. 2&3 were proceeded ex-parte on 5.7.2016 and OP No.4 was proceeded  against exparte on 18.7.2016.
3.     Opposite Party No.1 in its reply while admitting the factum that the mobile  in question was  defective, has asserted that the handset was repaired free of cost under warranty.  It is further asserted that merely that the handset was repaired 3-4 times does not indicate that there was inherent manufacturing defect in it.  claimed that the defects in the handset were duly rectified under warranty and even the handset which was 10 months old was replaced with equivalent model as per warranty terms.  It is further asserted that the replaced  handset gave problem after 4 months of its use  and the complainant was given a loaner handset being a 526 model for use during the period of repair. The said handset is still with service centre as it is out of warranty and also the complainant is not ready to collect the handset from the service centre. Pleading no deficiency in service and denying rest of the allegations, it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
4.     The Complainant also filed rejoinder thereby reiterating the averments as made in complaint and controverting that of the Opposite Party No.1 made in the reply.
5.     Contesting parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
6.     We have heard the complainant in person, ld. Counsel for Opposite Party No.1 and have also perused the record.
7.     The matter is settled to the extent that the handset in question i.e. Lenovo P780 was purchased by the complainant for Rs.10,757.14 on which became defective and remained under repair for numerous times and ultimately it was replaced with another handset of lower specification i.e. Lenovo S860 and that too did not function well and was deposited for the repair and during the repair the mother board of the replaced handset was also replaced. It is also not disputed that after replacement of the mother board problems still persisted with handset and the same was again deposited with the service centre for its repair. The complainant was also provided loaner handset till the repair of the handset of the complainant is completed.

     The complainant being fed up by the constant repairs of the replaced handset requested the OPs to replace the same with a new one. Evidence produced by the complainant on record reveals that numerous emails were exchanged between complainant and the OPs and the matter was lingered on for months together to take  decision regarding the request of the complainant in regard to replacement of the replaced defective handset. Complainant alleged that ultimately in the month of January the OPs vide email dated 14.1.2016 declined the request of the complainant for replacement, hence this complaint.

8.     OPs No.2,3 and 4 pleased to remain absent and as such they were proceeded against ex-parte.  This draws an inference that they admit the claim of the complainant as true and have nothing to contradict. Counsel for OP No.1 submitted that it duly provided service to the complainant as and when he approached and further submitted that they duly honored the warranty and repaired the handset free of cost under warranty whenever deposited for the repairs and merely because the handset was serviced 3-4 times  does not mean that it be replaced with a new one. Further claimed that they already replaced the handset purchased by the complainant and when the complainant submitted the replaced handset for repair, he was provided loaner handset for use till the return of the handset under repair. Counsel for the OP No.1 at the time of arguments submitted that the handset submitted for repair has already been repaired and the complainant is not approaching to collect the same and is also liable to return the loaner handset of the OP No.1
9.     The contents of the discussion above leads to inference that the complainant has thoroughly been harassed at the hands of the OPs who failed to resolve the issue at their end and gave a way to the complainant to indulge in litigation causing loss of money and time. Since it is clear from the record that the original handset purchased by the complainant remained under constant repairs (not as averred by OP NO.1 as 3-4 times)and ultimately was wrongly replaced with a lower model which too failed to function properly causing replacement of motherboard, which is a vital part of the said device. To the dismay of the complainant despite replacement of the motherboard the replaced handset in question again did not function well and it again, was deposited  for repairs with the OPs and the matter when was pressed for the replacement, the same was intentionally prolonged by the OPs. The OPs even failed to prove that the faulty handset deposited for repair was rectified and nowhere on record it is shown that the complainant was ever asked to collect the said handset, which leads to the inference that the said handset remained unrepaired with the service centre. In such scenario, we are of the considered view that the complainant has already suffered a lot mental agony while approaching the service centre again and again pursuing the matter repeatedly with the OPs for his genuine request of replacement. The request for replacement was made only for the reason that the complainant had already been harassed to get his original handset repaired on numerous occasions and had also under gone the struggle for replacement, which he again is suffering with the replaced handset. We are of the considered opinion that there must be an end to the sufferings of the complainant. In such scenario it is appropriate to direct the OPs to refund the amount of the handset in question as it failed to provide proper services to the complainant.
10.     In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the complaint deserves to be allowed.  Accordingly, the complaint is allowed and the Opposite Parties are jointly & severally directed as under:-

        

a]  To refund Rs.10,757.14 being the cost of the mobile handset;

 

b]  To pay Rs.7,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and physical harassment to the complainant.

C]  To pay Rs.3,000/- towards litigation expenses.

 

         The above said order shall be complied with by the Opposite Parties within 30 days of its receipt, failing which they shall be liable to pay interest on the above awarded amounts at (a) and (b) at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of this order till it is paid, besides paying litigation expenses.

 

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

Announced

15.12.2016

                                                                                       Sd/-

 (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER