Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/306/2015

Jaswinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

15 Jan 2016

ORDER

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

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	306 of 2015
Date  of  Institution	:	9.6.2015
Date   of   Decision	:	15.1.2016

 

 

 

 

 

Jaswinder Singh son of Sh. Avtar Singh of presently residing at house No.31, 1^st floor, 31MS Enclave, Zirakpur, Punjab.  

                …..Complainant

Versus

1. M/s Lenovo India Pvt. Ltd. having its Corporate  office at Vatika Business Park, First Floor Badshapur Road, Gurgaon Sector 49, Gurgaon 122018, Haryana through its Managing Director.
2. M/s Electro Enterprises SCO 1039, Sector 22B (Opposite Bus Stand), Chandigarh through its proprietor.
3. M/s HCL Services Ltd. SCO 66-67, 2^nd floor Sector 17-A, Chandigarh through its Manager.

 

….. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN                 PRESIDENT

        SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU       MEMBER

         MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA             MEMBER

 

 

For complainant(s)      :     Sh. V.M. Sharma, Advocate

 

For OP NO.1             :     Sh. Ashim Aggarwal, Advocate

For OP NO.2&3           :     exparte.

 

 

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

 

          As per the case, the complainant purchased a mobile Lenovo S-90 TITANIOM for a sum of Rs.19,500/- from Opposite Party No.2 vide Annexure C-1 dated 14.2.2015.  On the  recommendation of Opposite Party No.2 the complainant also purchased anti virus by paying an additional amount of Rs.1599/- vide  invoice Annexure C-2. It is alleged that the said handset started giving problem immediately after its purchase. The complainant  approached OPs No.1&2 who guided him to approach Opposite Party No.3 the authorized service centre of Opposite Party No.1 the manufacturer. When the complainant  approached to Opposite Party No.3 on 28.2.2015 it refused to repair the set immediately as they did not  have the software of the said handset and advised the complainant to visit after few days. However, despite email and telephonic conversation nothing was done. As such the complainant under  compelling circumstances approached service centre of Opposite Party No.1 at New Delhi to get the set trouble free. But nothing came fruitful as the set again started giving problem.   Thereafter the complainant time and again approached the Opposite Party No.3 for  rectification of the problem in the handset who despite its repair failed to diagnose the defect which rendered the set faulty and every time he faced the same problem despite assurance by Opposite Party No.3. On 13.5.2015 when the complainant again visited  Opposite Party No.3 it assured the complainant that in case it failed to rectify the defect in the handset they would apply for replacement of the same with Opposite Party No.1. It is alleged that despite visiting about four times to Opposite Party No.3 and sending numerous communications to the Opposite Parties for  redressal of his grievance they failed to rectify the defect in the handset, which caused a lot mental agony and physical harassment to the complainant. 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 despite service, therefore, they were proceeded ex-parte on 24.07.2015.

 

3.     Opposite Party No.1 in its reply while admitting factual matrix of the case stated that the complainant failed to collect the handset from the service centre from 14.5.2015 onwards despite the same was rectified and was made functional. It is  averred that the complainant reported only minor problems after one month of purchase which were duly rectified on same day by updating the software.  As per record of the Opposite Party company whenever the complainant approached with the prolems in the handset the same were rectified and returned to him. It is denied that Opposite Party No.3 had given any assurance regarding replacement of the handset. In fact the handset was duly repaired and the complainant was repeatedly requested to collect the same but he refused to do so despite letter Annexure OP1/5 sent to him. It is denied that there is any manufacturing defect in the handset. All minor issues in the handset were duly rectified. 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.     Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
6.     We have heard the ld.Counsel for the complainant, ld. Counsel for Opposite Party No.1 and have also perused the record.
7.     It is quite evident from the record that the complainant purchased a mobile Lenovo S-90 TITANIOM on 14.2.2015 worth Rs.19500/- and as additional safety also purchased anti virus by paying an amount of Rs.1599/-. The record of email correspondences and the job sheets on file give cogent impression that the said handset became defective from the very beginning of its purchase. The detail of problem description as mentioned in the job sheets is reproduced as under:-

Job sheet  dated 18.3.2015

Problem:- software crassing heating issue, call disconnecting rebuting issue.

Job Sheet dated 4.4.2015

Problem:-    hanging issue apps crash battery issue during roaming heat-up issue

 

Job Sheet dated 13.5.2015

 

Problem:-    network heat up hanging and ear piece internet 3g issue in 1 slot battery issue.

8.     It is vehemently alleged by the complainant that since the Opposite Parties failed to rectify the defect of the mobile set so the service centre of Opposite Party 3 conveyed that they would apply for its replacement with Opposite Party No.1 (manufacturer) and he also requested the OPs to  replace the same with  brand new set but they turned down the request of the complainant by giving no response to the same in this regard. Being aggrieved the present complaint has been filed by the complainant. Notice of the complaint was issued, which was duly served on Opposite Party No.1 (Manufacturer), Opposite Party No.2 (authorized dealer of Opposite Party No.1) and on Opposite Party No.3 (authorized service centre) with whom the mobile was deposited for rectification. Opposite Parties No. 2&3 despite duly served failed to appear and contest the allegations of the complaint and accordingly they were proceeded against ex-parte. Their non appearance is presumed in a way that either they have admitted the allegations of the complaint or they have nothing to say against it.
9.     Opposite Party No.1 has duly made his presence  through its counsel Ms. Geeta Gulati who submitted that  the complainant has not approached the Forum with clean hands as the mobile in question has been repaired and he was issued letter dated 21.5.2015 to collect the same from their service centre, which was deposited for repair. Instead of collecting the same the complainant vide letter dated 12.5.2015 stated that since the matter has already been processed to consumer court so he is not ready to accept the handset in any case.  In support of its version Opposite Party No.1 has placed reliance on S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) by L.Rs vs. Jagannath (dead) by L.Rs. and other decided  by the On’ble Supreme Court on 27.10.1993.
10.     Opposite Party No.1 disputed that the complainant has not placed on record expert opinion to prove that the handset in question is suffering from manufacturing defect. In support of its version Opposite Party No.1 placed reliance on Sukhvinder Singh vs. Classic Automobile and Tata Motors Ltd. decided by the National  Commission on 6.11.2012.
11.     We are not convince with statement of the Opposite Parties that the complainant failed to place on record any expert opinion to prove any manufacturing defect, whereas the Opposite Parties were supposed to place on record its engineers report to the effect that the handset in question, which constantly remained under repair since its purchase, is free from any manufacturing defect. We can understand the trouble and mental agony suffered by the innocent consumer who purchased an expensive handset for his usage and also incurred extra money for purchasing anti virus on the advice of the dealer to ensure the proper functioning of the handset in question but all his dreams shattered when immediately after its purchase he was forced to approach the service centre of the Opposite Party No.1 time and again for getting the handset trouble free, which the OPs failed to do so.
12.     Despite many visits by the complainant to the service centre the OPs neither repaired the handset in question to the satisfaction of the complainant nor they replaced the same till date. In our opinion the complainant rightly refused to collect the handset as after fedding up from the wrong assurances he felt that a letter dated 21.5.2015 has been issued to escape legal liability.
13.      Under these circumstances, we feel that the refund of the price of the handset in question will be the appropriate remedy for the complainant and the Opposite Parties are also liable to compensate the complainant for deficiency in rendering service.

        

13]      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.19,500/- being the cost of the mobile handset;

 

b]  To pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and physical harassment to the complainant and of course on account of deficiency in rendering service.

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

 

         The above said order shall be complied with by the Opposite Parties within 45 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

15.1.2016

                                                                             Sd/-  

 (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

 (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER