This is a discussion on Motorola India within the Mobile forums, part of the Technology category; Jose Thomas, S/o Mr.P.J.Thomas Kuttyl, Aged about 27 yrs, Residing at P-146, 8th Main, 3rd Cross, 12th Sector, Jeevan Bhima ...
S/o Mr.P.J.Thomas Kuttyl,
Aged about 27 yrs,
Residing at P-146, 8th Main,
3rd Cross, 12th Sector,
Jeevan Bhima Nagar,
Bangalore – 75.
01. Motorola India Private Limited,
Motorola Excellence Centre,
415/2, Mehrauli Gurgaon Road,
Sector – 14, Gurgaon 122001,
Represented by its Director,
02. Sagar Technologies Private Limited,
No.60, 11th Cross, I Stage,
Indira Nagar, Bangalore – 560 038.
03. Sangeetha Mobiles,
12, CMH Road,
Next to City Bank ATM,
Bangalore – 560 038.
…. Opposite Parties
This complaint is for a direction to the Opposite Party to pay jointly and severally a sum of Rs.1,59,400/- with interest at 15% Per Annum or in the alternative to replace the defective Mobile Phone with a brand new Mobile Phone of the same value and to pay compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- with interest at 15% Per Annum
2. The case of the complainant is as under:-
Opposite Party No.1 is the manufacture of the Mobile Phone and other communication devices in a brand name MOTOROLA. Opposite Party No.1 had launched a high-end mobile phone series called MotorokrZ6 and widely advertised the product for its various features. The complainant purchased Motorola Mobile Phone, Model MotorokrZ6 from Opposite Party No.3 on 29/01/2008 for Rs.9,400/-. The phone was sold as a brand new one and it had a warranty of one year. Within 10 weeks after the purchase, the phone was not functioning properly and there was difficulty in turning it.
The matter was informed to Opposite Party N0.2 – the service center of Opposite Party No.1 and the phone was returned after some repairs stating that it would function well. On 26/04/2008, the complainant experienced trouble with the phone again as the keypad was not functioning and the phone hung several times. When reported, Opposite Party No.2 retained the phone for about 40 days and then returned stating that it has been repaired. Within six weeks thereafter the complainant started facing problems with the functioning of the Phone and brought it to the notice of the customer care of Opposite Party No.1 through ‘e’ mail dated:03/06/2008. He set out the problems with the phone such as faulty keypad, slider and mother board, etc and requested the customer care to initiate the replacement procedure since the phone was completely defective.
But no action was taken and the complainant had visited the office of Opposite Party No.2 several times to check the status. On 28/08/2008 he took the phone to Opposite Party No.2 for repair, but since then neither Opposite Party No.1 nor Opposite Party No.2 have taken any effort in repairing and returning the phone and the phone has been in possession of Opposite Party No.2 till today. Frustrated by the attitude of Opposite Party No.2, he wrote ‘e’ mail dated 09/10/2008 to the Customer Care of Opposite Party No.1 stating that the phone has undergone three rounds of repair already and the same has neither been repaired nor returned. He also brought it to the notice that one Mr.Amith – the Regional Vice-President and Mr.Shriram – the Country Head of Opposite Party No.2 were also aware of the facts, but they have not shown any response.
He waited for nearly two months for return of the phone in a good shape or to be replaced, but Opposite Party No.2 has not taken any action. On 11/10/2008 the Customer Care executive of Opposite Party No.1 requested him to furnish certain details and the same were furnished through ‘e’ mail dated 13/10/2008. Though the complainant was assured that the relevant Case Department of Opposite Party No.1 would get in touch with him, no action has been taken till day. He sent another ‘e’ mail seeking for the status, but has not received any response either from Opposite Party No.1 or from Opposite Party No.2.
The Phone had been given for repairs several times for improper functioning of the slider, software issues, faulty keypad, non-synchronizing with the computer, poor phone memory, problems of auto-dialing, auto-messaging, change in alarm settings, switching off even if the battery is charged, automatic change in the personal themes, ring-tones and the like. A brand new phone consisting of such enormous problems within a span of few months is very disappointing and clearly indicates that the Opposite Parties have sold a complete defective product quoting a high price for making unlawful gains. Besides sale of a defective product, the service quality has been very poor.
Despite following up several times, Opposite Party Nos. 1 & 2 have not cared to return the phone. He suffered loss in not having access to the phone for his business purposes as the phone was not returned or replaced well within time. The nature of his profession demands net working and use of mobile phones is critical. The Opposite Parties have caused a huge loss in not repairing or replacing the phone and returning the phone beyond five months without any notice on the progress of the repair or replacement. He issued legal notice dated 20/11/2008 setting out reasons and asking the Opposite Parties to replace the old mobile with a brand new set with warranty or refund the entire purchase price of the phone with interest at 18% and pay damages of Rs.1,50,000/- for personal inconvenience and mental agony. Even no response is shown to the legal notice. Hence, the complaint.
3. In spite of service of notice, the Opposite Party No.3 – the dealer from whom the complainant had purchased the mobile phone has remained absent. Opposite Party No.1 appeared in person and filed version. But it is seen that the version is not at all signed by anybody on behalf of Opposite Party No.1. Opposite Party No.2 also appeared in person and offered a new mobile phone to the complainant. But the learned counsel for the complainant refused to receive the mobile phone. Thereafter Opposite Party No.2 did not file the version. In the unsigned version Opposite Party No.1 has admitted that the mobile handset was given for repairs on three occasions and ultimately they offered to replace the handset with a new one, but the complainant did not turn-up to receive new handset.
4. In support of the claim, the complainant has filed his affidavit. The Opposite Parties have not adduced any evidence. When the matter came up for arguments, the Opposite Parties remained absent. The learned counsel for the complainant has filed written arguments.
5. The points for consideration are:-
1. Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties?
2. Whether the complainant entitled to the relief prayed for in the complaint?
6. Our findings are:-
Point No(1) : In the Affirmative as
Against O.P.Nos. 1&2
Point No(2) : As per final order,
for the following:-
7. Except the fact that the complainant had purchased the mobile handset from Opposite Party No.3 – the dealer, no allegations of deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party No.3 are made. All the allegations with regard to deficiency in service are against Opposite Party Nos. 1 & 2 only. Therefore, in the absence of material, Opposite Party No.3 cannot be held guilty of deficient service and as such the complaint against Opposite Party No.3 is liable to be dismissed.
The fact that the complainant purchased the mobile handset on 29/01/2008 is also evident from the receipt dated 29/01/2008 issued by Opposite Party No.3. From the copies of work order sheet produced by complainant it is seen that the mobile handset was given to Opposite Party No.2 for repairs on three occasions. The fact that the complainant had given the handset to Opposite Party No.2 on 20/08/2008 for repairs and so far the same is not returned is also not denied by the Opposite Parties. After the Opposite Parties failed to return the handset, the present complaint is filed on 24/01/2009.
Though in the unsigned version it is contended by Opposite Party No.1 that the complainant was offered replacement of the mobile handset with a new one, but the complainant himself did not turn-up, nothing is placed on record to show that at any time before the date of complaint, the complainant was informed to receive a brand new handset in place of old handset. In view of the fact that the mobile handset purchased on 29/01/2008 had to be repaired thrice within a span of six months and in spite of such repairs, the mobile handset was not restored in a good working condition makes it clear that the handset has manufacturing defects and therefore Opposite Party No.2 was unable to repair the same. When Opposite Party No.2 is ready to replace the handset with a brand new handset in place of old one, it is just and proper to direct the Opposite Parties to replace the handset with a brand new defect free handset with extended warranty.
The alternative relief prayed for is also for replacement of the handset with a new one. Therefore, the complainant is not entitled to seek refund of the price paid for the handset. Having regard to the fact that the Opposite Parties 1 & 2 failed to either repair the handset or to replace the old set with a new one for nearly five months, the complainant appears to have suffered some inconvenience and mental agony and therefore needs to be compensated. However, we are not convinced with the claim of the complainant for grant of compensation of Rs.1,50,000/-. In our opinion it is just and sufficient if the complainant is awarded compensation of Rs.5,000/-. In the result, we pass the following:-
1. The complaint is ALLOWED as against Opposite Party Nos. 1 & 2 and DISMISSED as against Opposite Party No.3.
2. The Opposite Party Nos. 1 & 2 are directed to replace the handset purchased by the complainant with a brand new Mobile Handset of the same make and price with extended warranty from the date of such replacement.
3. The Opposite Party Nos. 1 & 2 are also directed to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant.
4. Compliance of this order shall be made within eight weeks from the date of communication.
5. Send a copy of this order to both parties free of costs, immediately.
6. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 16th Day of JULY 2009.