S.A. Rasheed, S/o Md. Haneef, Advocate’s Clerk, Door No.30-9-12, Namburivari Street, Durga Agraharam, Eluru Road, Vijayawada – 2.



…… Complainant.



And



1. Cell World Show Room, Rep: By its Branch Manager, Door No.29-37-79/80, Eluru Road, Suryaraopet, Vijayawada - 2.



2. M/s Motorola Ucom Technology Private Limited., Rep: By its Director, Door No.28-1-38, 1st Floor, Above New Student Centre, Near Sonovision, Eluru Road, Vijayawada – 520 002.



3. Motorola India Private Limited., Rep: By its Managing Director, 415/2, Mehranit Gurgaon Road, Gurgaon – 122 001.



…. Opposite parties





ORDER







1. The brief averments of the complaint are as follows:



That the complainant purchased a Motorola Cell phone from the 1st opposite party on 12.01.2008 by paying a consideration of Rs.3,050/-. Later it gave several troubles from the day of its use so, the complainant approached the 1st opposite party and on his advise, approached the 2nd opposite party who is the service provider though, the 2nd opposite party repaired the cell twice but of no avail and it is giving trouble and that the cell is having patent and latent defects. Lastly the complainant gave the cell to the 2nd opposite party on 06.01.2009 and it is with the 2nd opposite party. From the date of the purchase of the mobile the complainant is suffering a lot and it never satisfied the complainant for use or otherwise. As all the efforts of the complainant became futile to get the mobile repaired so, the complaint.



2. After registering the complaint notices were sent to the opposite parties but they failed to contest.



3. The complainant filed an affidavit and got marked Exs.A1 to A5.



4. Heard and perused.



5. Now the point that arises for consideration in this complaint are:



I) Whether there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?



II) To what relief the complainant is entitled?



6. Point No.1: As could be seen from the material on hand there is no dispute that the complainant purchased a Motorola Cell phone vide Ex.A1 from the 1st opposite party, further, there is no dispute that the said mobile is having warranty vide Ex.A2 ofcourse, there are some terms and conditions with regard to warranty but the opposite parties failed to say or represent that the complainant has violated the terms and conditions in the warranty so no need to say that the complainant failed to follow the terms and conditions under Ex.A2.


Further there is no dispute that the complainant approached the 1st opposite party and there after 2nd opposite party for rectification of the defects in the mobile vide Exs.A3 to A5 though, the 2nd opposite party rectified one defect and it is giving another trouble that means the mobile is having patent defects rather than latent defects and that the 2nd opposite party failed to rectify the patent defects and only rectified the latent defects which are simple and of late failed to rectify the defects.

which were pointed out by the complainant and is keeping the cell with him (opposite party No.2) so, the complainant has no other go except to approach this Forum for proper redressal and even after that also the opposite parties failed to rebut the version or the evidence of the complainant as such the plea of the complainant is acceptable as that of genuine and accepted and as the opposite parties filed to render proper, timely and necessary services to the complainant (for mobile) so, the acts of the opposite parties falls within the purview of deficiency in service and accordingly this point is answered.



7. Point No.2: In the result the complaint is allowed and the 1st opposite party is hereby directed to replace a new defective free mobile by taking back the defective phone under Ex.A1 and there after claim the new one from the 3rd opposite party the manufacturer and the opposite parties 1 to 3 (jointly and severally) are directed to pay an amount of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand) only towards costs to the complainant. Rest of the claim if any claimed by the complainant is rejected. Time for compliance one month.

Ramesh Sandhu, S/o Shri Mangal Singh Sandhu, aged 27 years, Now posted as LEMR, in Indian Navy, at Visakhapatnam, R/o Quarter No.J-9/22, Nau Sainik Vihar, Gandhi Gram Post, Dolphin Hills, Visakhapatnam

… Complainant

And:

1. The Motorola India Private Limited, 415/2 Mahrauli Gurgaon Road, Sector – 14, Gurgaon (Haryana), through its Chief Managing Director (for customers satisfaction Manager.

2. M/s Tata Tele-services Limited, D.No.47-11-11, Eshwar Madhav Mansion Dwaraka Nagar, Visakhapatnam – 16, rep. by its Sales Manager.

3. The Redington Service, D.No.47-10-3/9, 1st Floor Medicherla Towers, Near Diamond Park, Dwaraka Nagar, Visakhapatnam – 16, rep. by its Manager.

… Opposite Parties


: O R D E R :




1. The case of the complainant is that he purchased a cell phone from 2nd opposite party and ever since he purchased it is malfunctioning i.e., improper display of monitor and resultant backdrops. Inspite of several attempts, shuttling between the dealer and service provider, ultimately he handedover the set to 3rd opposite party. After examining the set the 3rd opposite party explained that since it is a complicated repair the set need to be sent to the company for undertaking certain repairs for which the complainant gave consent.

2. The 1st opposite party i.e., the manufacturer in his affidavit contended that the complainant has made the complaint at the fag end of the covered warranty period, so it attributed motives on the part of the complainant.

3. Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.7 marked for the complainant. Ex.B.1 marked for 3rd opposite party

4. The point that arises for consideration is whether there is deficiency in service?

5. On examining the facts of the circumstances, the complainant after making frantic efforts to get his set rectified by the dealer and on failure of the party i.e., the 2nd opposite party and 3rd opposite party failed to rectify to the satisfaction of the complainant, as the issues of complaint remains same. In these circumstances the complainant prayed for refund of Rs.4,800/- with interest @ 18% p.a., and to pay Rs.20,000/- towards damages.

6. After careful examining of the issues in respect of the complainant as well as the counters of the opposite parties concerned it is prima facie found that the cell started malfunctioning ever since he purchased it and his attempts to get it rectified by the 1st opposite party and 3rd opposite party failed and also did not receive proper response and the services extended by them is also not found satisfactory. In these circumstances the Forum is of the view that the cost of the cell phone i.e., Rs.4,800/- to be refunded to the complainant besides awarding a compensation of Rs.3,000/- towards damages.

7. In the result, the complaint is allowed, directing the opposite parties to refund Rs.4,800/- and to pay Rs.3,000/- towards compensation. Opposite parties are further directed to pay Rs.1,000/- towards costs.

Suganthi

D/o. S.P. Selvam

68, Annai Indhira Nagar

Chokkampudur,

Coimbatore – 39. --- Complainant

Vs.

1. The Manager,

Univercell

T.V. Samy Road,

R.S. Puram, Coimbatore.

2.The Branch Manager,

Redington Service,

No.95-C, Prasad chamber,

East Arokiyasamy Road,

R.S. Puram, Coimbatore – 02.

3. Managing Director,

M/s. Motorala India private Ltd.,

415/2, Mehrunli Gurgaon Road,

Gurgaon – 122 011. --- Opposite Parties



This case coming on for final hearing before us on 17.9.09 and 19.9.09 in the presence of Mr. A.S. Bahavat singh, and Mr. T.Bharathi Raja Advocates for complainant and the 1st and 3rd opposite parties remained absent and set exparte and 2nd opposite party in person and upon perusing the case records and hearing the arguments and the case having stood over to this day for consideration, this Forum passed the following:

ORDER

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking direction against the opposite parties to repay the sum of Rs.3,150/- toward the value of the cell phone to the complainant, to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and sufferings, suffered to the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and to pay towards cost of the proceedings.

The averments in the complaint are as follows:

1. The complainant purchased MOTORALA W 270 Hand set IMEL No. 352485/02/211796/1 on 2.08.08 from the 1st opposite party for Rs. 3,150/-. When

she purchased the 1st opposite party promised to alter the cell phone for any fault in the outer case. The warranty card also stated the same. After 40 days the outer case was broken immediately the complainant reported the matter to the 1st opposite party where she purchased. But the 1st opposite party asked the complainant to come after 15 days and assured to do the needful. The complainant after 15 days approached the 1st opposite party who requested to see the 2nd opposite party for service.

2. But the 2nd opposite party neglected to service or alter the outer case with free of cost. But the 2nd opposite party insisted the complainant to come after 1 month later after getting the advice from the 3rd opposite party. After that the complainant has sent email to the 1st opposite party on 30.10.2008 but there was no reply. The complainant sent a legal notice on 8.11.08 to the opposite parties 1 and 3. They received same and till day no reply. The opposite parties who have performed a improper and deficiency of service in the sales and manufacturing in violation of the terms and condition of the warranty agreement, which caused heavy loss monetarily and also mental agony to the complainant. Hence the opposite party is liable to compensate the complainant.

The averments in the counter filed by the 2nd opposite party is as follows:

3. The 2nd opposite party is one of the authorized service providers for the mobile handsets manufactured by Motorola and carrying on repair services during warranty period as per the terms and conditions imposed on it by the manufacturer without receiving any consideration from the customers. The allegations made against the 2nd opposite party are baseless, untenable and misconceived. The complainant had approached the service center in the month of September with his handset and enquired about the details of warranty applicability for broken parts. This opposite party’s service engineer had clearly explicated to the complainant that as the warranty terms stipulated by the manufacturer, Motorola broken parts will not be covered under warranty, furtherance to which the complainant herein chose to take away his handset without registering any complaint.

4. Subsequently this opposite party came to be aware that the complainant had directly approached the manufacturer, Motorola’s customer care center and registered a complaint. When the said complaint was diverted to the service center of this opposite party, the service engineer had contacted the complainant through telephone and clarified about the warranty guidelines of the manufacturer, Motorola. Thereafter the complainant himself had again visited the service center and this opposite party had clearly informed that as the outer cover of the subject handset was broken, the same could not be covered under warranty services as per the terms of the manufacturer, M/s. Motorola.

5. The 2nd opposite party is not guilty of any deficiency in service whatsoever. The complainant has no cause of action against the 2nd opposite party. The complaint deserves dismissal as against this opposite party and this opposite party is not liable to pay the compensation as claimed by the complainant.

6. The complainant and opposite parties have filed Proof Affidavit along with documents Ex.A1 to A6 was marked and B1 and B2 was marked on the side of the 2nd opposite party.



The point for consideration is

Whether the opposite parties have committed deficiency in service? If so to what relief the complainant is entitled to?



ISSUE 1

7. The case of the Complainant is that she has purchased MOTORALA W 270 hand set on 22.8.08 from the 1st opposite party for Rs. 3,150/-, at the time of purchase she was promised by the 1st opposite party to alter the cell phone if any fault in the outer case. After 40 days the outer case was broken the 1st opposite party advised the complainant to see the 2nd opposite party, but the 2nd opposite party refused to repair the set.

8. The contention of the 2nd opposite party is broken parts will not be covered under the warranty service, for any manufacturing defect in the hand set it is only the manufacturer of the hand set to whom the issue has to be settled.

9. The complainant has purchased the Motorola Cell Phone on 2.8.08, Ex.A1 is the cash bill and Ex.A2 is the warranty card. The Ex.A2 clearly states that “any outer case” broken the warranty will apply”. The complainant has sent an E-Mail Ex.A3 on 30.10.08 to the 1st opposite party who is the seller. Again a Legal Notice was also sent to all opposite parties on 8.11.08 through Ex.A4 though they received there was no reply from the 1st and 3rd opposite parties. Both the 1st opposite party the seller and the 3rd opposite party the manufacturer fails to give any reply nor make any steps to rectify the cell phone.


The 2nd opposite party who has appeared before this Forum and defended his case. The 2nd opposite party is only an authorized service centre who provides service during the warranty period as per terms and conditions without receiving any consideration. In the present case the 2nd opposite party has admitted that the complainant has approached the service centre of the 2nd opposite party but would contend the warranty will not apply. In the present case the defect is a manufacturing defect and hence both manufacturer and the seller who sold the phone set are alone responsible and answerable to the complainant. Both the 1st and 3rd opposite parties fails to appear before this Forum.

Hence we are of the view that both the 1st and 3rd opposite parties have committed deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

8. In the result, we direct the 1st and 3rd opposite parties to repay a sum of Rs.3150 towards the value of the cell phone, to pay a total compensation of Rs.10,000 for mental agony and sufferings and to pay a cost of Rs.1000 to the complainant within two months from the date of this order failing which the complainant is at liberty to execute this order u/s.25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.This complaint is dismissed as against the 2nd opposite party.

Ramesh Sandhu, S/o Shri Mangal Singh Sandhu, aged 27 years, Now posted as LEMR, in Indian Navy, at Visakhapatnam, R/o Quarter No.J-9/22, Nau Sainik Vihar, Gandhi Gram Post, Dolphin Hills, Visakhapatnam

… Complainant

And:

1. The Motorola India Private Limited, 415/2 Mahrauli Gurgaon Road, Sector – 14, Gurgaon (Haryana), through its Chief Managing Director (for customers satisfaction Manager.

2. M/s Tata Tele-services Limited, D.No.47-11-11, Eshwar Madhav Mansion Dwaraka Nagar, Visakhapatnam – 16, rep. by its Sales Manager.

3. The Redington Service, D.No.47-10-3/9, 1st Floor Medicherla Towers, Near Diamond Park, Dwaraka Nagar, Visakhapatnam – 16, rep. by its Manager.

… Opposite Parties


: O R D E R :







1. The case of the complainant is that he purchased a cell phone from 2nd opposite party and ever since he purchased it is malfunctioning i.e., improper display of monitor and resultant backdrops. Inspite of several attempts, shuttling between the dealer and service provider, ultimately he handedover the set to 3rd opposite party. After examining the set the 3rd opposite party explained that since it is a complicated repair the set need to be sent to the company for undertaking certain repairs for which the complainant gave consent.

2. The 1st opposite party i.e., the manufacturer in his affidavit contended that the complainant has made the complaint at the fag end of the covered warranty period, so it attributed motives on the part of the complainant.

3. Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.7 marked for the complainant. Ex.B.1 marked for 3rd opposite party

4. The point that arises for consideration is whether there is deficiency in service?

5. On examining the facts of the circumstances, the complainant after making frantic efforts to get his set rectified by the dealer and on failure of the party i.e., the 2nd opposite party and 3rd opposite party failed to rectify to the satisfaction of the complainant, as the issues of complaint remains same. In these circumstances the complainant prayed for refund of Rs.4,800/- with interest @ 18% p.a., and to pay Rs.20,000/- towards damages.

6. After careful examining of the issues in respect of the complainant as well as the counters of the opposite parties concerned it is prima facie found that the cell started malfunctioning ever since he purchased it and his attempts to get it rectified by the 1st opposite party and 3rd opposite party failed and also did not receive proper response and the services extended by them is also not found satisfactory. In these circumstances the Forum is of the view that the cost of the cell phone i.e., Rs.4,800/- to be refunded to the complainant besides awarding a compensation of Rs.3,000/- towards damages.

7. In the result, the complaint is allowed, directing the opposite parties to refund Rs.4,800/- and to pay Rs.3,000/- towards compensation. Opposite parties are further directed to pay Rs.1,000/- towards costs.

Suganthi

D/o. S.P. Selvam

68, Annai Indhira Nagar

Chokkampudur,

Coimbatore – 39. --- Complainant

Vs.

1. The Manager,

Univercell

T.V. Samy Road,

R.S. Puram, Coimbatore.

2.The Branch Manager,

Redington Service,

No.95-C, Prasad chamber,

East Arokiyasamy Road,

R.S. Puram, Coimbatore – 02.

3. Managing Director,

M/s. Motorala India private Ltd.,

415/2, Mehrunli Gurgaon Road,

Gurgaon – 122 011. --- Opposite Parties





ORDER




1. The complainant purchased MOTORALA W 270 Hand set IMEL No. 352485/02/211796/1 on 2.08.08 from the 1st opposite party for Rs. 3,150/-. When

she purchased the 1st opposite party promised to alter the cell phone for any fault in the outer case. The warranty card also stated the same. After 40 days the outer case was broken immediately the complainant reported the matter to the 1st opposite party where she purchased. But the 1st opposite party asked the complainant to come after 15 days and assured to do the needful. The complainant after 15 days approached the 1st opposite party who requested to see the 2nd opposite party for service.

2. But the 2nd opposite party neglected to service or alter the outer case with free of cost. But the 2nd opposite party insisted the complainant to come after 1 month later after getting the advice from the 3rd opposite party. After that the complainant has sent email to the 1st opposite party on 30.10.2008 but there was no reply. The complainant sent a legal notice on 8.11.08 to the opposite parties 1 and 3. They received same and till day no reply. The opposite parties who have performed a improper and deficiency of service in the sales and manufacturing in violation of the terms and condition of the warranty agreement, which caused heavy loss monetarily and also mental agony to the complainant. Hence the opposite party is liable to compensate the complainant.

The averments in the counter filed by the 2nd opposite party is as follows:

3. The 2nd opposite party is one of the authorized service providers for the mobile handsets manufactured by Motorola and carrying on repair services during warranty period as per the terms and conditions imposed on it by the manufacturer without receiving any consideration from the customers. The allegations made against the 2nd opposite party are baseless, untenable and misconceived. The complainant had approached the service center in the month of September with his handset and enquired about the details of warranty applicability for broken parts. This opposite party’s service engineer had clearly explicated to the complainant that as the warranty terms stipulated by the manufacturer, Motorola broken parts will not be covered under warranty, furtherance to which the complainant herein chose to take away his handset without registering any complaint.

4. Subsequently this opposite party came to be aware that the complainant had directly approached the manufacturer, Motorola’s customer care center and registered a complaint. When the said complaint was diverted to the service center of this opposite party, the service engineer had contacted the complainant through telephone and clarified about the warranty guidelines of the manufacturer, Motorola. Thereafter the complainant himself had again visited the service center and this opposite party had clearly informed that as the outer cover of the subject handset was broken, the same could not be covered under warranty services as per the terms of the manufacturer, M/s. Motorola.

5. The 2nd opposite party is not guilty of any deficiency in service whatsoever. The complainant has no cause of action against the 2nd opposite party. The complaint deserves dismissal as against this opposite party and this opposite party is not liable to pay the compensation as claimed by the complainant.

6. The complainant and opposite parties have filed Proof Affidavit along with documents Ex.A1 to A6 was marked and B1 and B2 was marked on the side of the 2nd opposite party.



The point for consideration is

Whether the opposite parties have committed deficiency in service? If so to what relief the complainant is entitled to?



ISSUE 1

7. The case of the Complainant is that she has purchased MOTORALA W 270 hand set on 22.8.08 from the 1st opposite party for Rs. 3,150/-, at the time of purchase she was promised by the 1st opposite party to alter the cell phone if any fault in the outer case. After 40 days the outer case was broken the 1st opposite party advised the complainant to see the 2nd opposite party, but the 2nd opposite party refused to repair the set.

8. The contention of the 2nd opposite party is broken parts will not be covered under the warranty service, for any manufacturing defect in the hand set it is only the manufacturer of the hand set to whom the issue has to be settled.

9. The complainant has purchased the Motorola Cell Phone on 2.8.08, Ex.A1 is the cash bill and Ex.A2 is the warranty card. The Ex.A2 clearly states that “any outer case” broken the warranty will apply”. The complainant has sent an E-Mail Ex.A3 on 30.10.08 to the 1st opposite party who is the seller. Again a Legal Notice was also sent to all opposite parties on 8.11.08 through Ex.A4 though they received there was no reply from the 1st and 3rd opposite parties.


Both the 1st opposite party the seller and the 3rd opposite party the manufacturer fails to give any reply nor make any steps to rectify the cell phone. The 2nd opposite party who has appeared before this Forum and defended his case. The 2nd opposite party is only an authorized service centre who provides service during the warranty period as per terms and conditions without receiving any consideration.


In the present case the 2nd opposite party has admitted that the complainant has approached the service centre of the 2nd opposite party but would contend the warranty will not apply. In the present case the defect is a manufacturing defect and hence both manufacturer and the seller who sold the phone set are alone responsible and answerable to the complainant. Both the 1st and 3rd opposite parties fails to appear before this Forum.

Hence we are of the view that both the 1st and 3rd opposite parties have committed deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.