DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, NORTH-WEST
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
CSC-BLOCK-C, POCKET-C, SHALIMAR BAGH, DELHI-110088.
CC No: 92/2017
D.No._______________________ Date: __________________
IN THE MATTER OF:
NAVEEN TYAGI S/o SH. JAI BHAGWAN TYAGI,
R/o VILLAGE & POST BHIGAN
SONEPAT, HARYANA-131001.… COMPLAINANT
Versus
1. MAX MOBILE CARE,
(AUTHORIZED SERVICE CENTER OF
MOTOROLA MOBILES),
SHOP No. 56, 57 AGGARWAL CITY MALL,
PITAM PURA, DELHI-110036.
2. FLEXTRONICS TECHNOLOGIES (I) PVT. LTD.,
(DTA UNIT) PLOT No.3, PHASE-II,
SIPCOT INDL. PARK, SANDAVELLUR ‘C’ VILLAGE,
SRIPERUMBUDUR TALUK, KANCHEEPURAM DISTT.,
TAMIL NADU-6002106.
3. MOTOROLA MOBILITY INDIA PVT. LTD.,
12TH FLOOR, TOWER-D,
DLF CYBER GREEN, DLF CYBER CITY,
GURGAON-122002. … OPPOSITE PARTY(IES)
CORAM:SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT
SH. BARIQ AHMED, MEMBER
MS. USHA KHANNA, MEMBER
Date of Institution: 30.01.2017 Date of decision:18.03.2019
SH. BARIQ AHMED, MEMBER
ORDER
1. The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OPs
CC No. 92/2017 Page 1 of 6
under Section 12 & 14 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 thereby alleging that the complainant booked a mobile handset MOTO X Play online at home on 23.12.2015 and the official of Flipkart gave an order no. OD1104773496334981000. On 26.12.2015, one courier boy came at the home of the complainant from OP-2 and delivered a mobile handset vide IMEI No. 358953061317952 and the complainant paid Rs.16,499/- against invoice no. CHN_PUZHAL_012015120243906 dated 26.12.2015. The complainant further alleged that the complainant was shocked when in the month of June the mobile handset got faulty, the display image too light of mobile handset and charging not properly. Thereafter, the complainant contacted to OP-1 in the month of June-2016 but the official of OP-1 assured that the mobile handset is in running condition and after some time it is OK automatically and that the complainant was shocked when in the month of September-2016 it again got faulty, after that the complainant approached to OP-1 on 19.09.2016 and requested them to replace the mobile handset and give DOA and the official of OP-1 received mobile handset against job sheet no.AMSDEH011069. The complainant further alleged that at the time of taking the said faulty mobile handset the official/worker of OP-1 assured to the complainant to return the said mobile in good running condition
CC No. 92/2017 Page 2 of 6
within 10 days but when the complainant approached to OP-1 after 10 days the official of OP-1 denied to handover the mobile handset. Thereafter, the complainant many times visited at the service center of OP-1 and requested them to return his mobile but all the requests of the complainant were fallen in deaf ears and after that the complainant approached and requested to OP-3 but again the fake and false assurance were given by the manager of OP-3 and the complainant approached several times to OPs for repairing his mobile handset as it is duly covered and protected within warrantee period but OPs keep on avoiding the matter on the one pretext or the other. The complainant further alleged that the mobile handset is still lying faulty with OP-1 and the complainant has also many times contacted and requested to the manager of the OPs through telephonic calls but no avail and has suffered a loss and further alleged that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs.
2. On these allegations the complainant has filed the complaint praying for direction to OPs to refund the invoice amount i.e. Rs16,499/- alongwith interest as well as compensation of Rs.50,000/- for mental, physical agony and harassment. The complainant has also sought an amount of Rs.1,100/- as litigation cost.
3. Notices to OPs were issued through speed post for appearance on
CC No. 92/2017 Page 3 of 6
05.07.2017 and the notice to OP-1 was served on 17.02.2017 and none has appeared on behalf of OP-1 and as such OP-1 proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 12.10.2017. The notices of OP-2 & OP-3 were served on 22.01.2018 as per track reports and none has appeared on behalf of OP-2 & OP-3 and as such OP-2 & OP-3 were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 16.03.2018.
4. In order to prove his case the complainant filed his affidavit in evidence and has also filed written arguments. The complainant has also placed on record copy of retail/tax invoice dated 26.12.2015 issued by WS Retail Services Pvt. Ltd. and copy of service note no. AMSDEH011069 dated 19.09.2016.
5. This forum has considered the case of the complainant in the light of evidence and documents placed on record by the complainant. The case of the complainant has remained consistent and undoubted. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the case of the complainant. Moreover, it appears thateven after receiving summons of this case from this forum, the OPs have kept mum and have not bothered to answer the case of the complainant.
6. On perusal of the record, we find that the complainant made complaint of his mobile to the service enter of OP-1 within warranty period. Though OPs had tried to rectify the defect which has occurred in the mobile handset again and again. It was the duty of the OPs to rectify the defect once for all or to replace the product.
CC No. 92/2017 Page 4 of 6
Frequent recurring of the defect in the mobile handset clearly shows that there is some inherent manufacturing defect in the mobile which OPs have failed to rectify. A customer/consumer is not expected to file complaint in respect of new product purchased. It is expected that the new product purchased is free from all sorts of defect in the product. Accordingly, OP-1 & OP-3areheld guilty of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. It is on record that the complainant has used the mobile handset for about 6 months.
7. Accordingly, OP-1 & OP-3 jointly or severally are directed as under:
i) To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.12,000/- being the depreciated value of the mobile handset on return of accessories, original invoice and job sheets.
ii) To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.7,000/- ascompensation towards mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant
iii) To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.1,100/- cost of litigation cost.
8. The above amount shall be paid by the OP-1 &OP-3 jointly or severally to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receiving copy of this order failing which OP-3 shall be liable to pay interest on the entire awarded amount @ 10% perannum from the date of receiving copy of this order till the date of payment. If OP-1
CC No. 92/2017 Page 5 of 6
&OP-3 fail to comply the order within 30 days from the date of receiving copy of this order, the complainant may approach this Forum u/s 25 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
9. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on this 18th day of March, 2019.
BARIQ AHMED USHA KHANNA M.K. GUPTA
(MEMBER) (MEMBER) (PRESIDENT)
CC No. 92/2017 Page 6 of 6
