DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No. 464 of 15.12.2017

                                      Decided on:     5.11.2020

Vishal Dogra,Advocate aged about 23 years s/o Yash Paul R/o H.No.2157, Type-II, DMW Railway Colony, Patiala

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1. Motorola Customer Service Centre/Lenova Service Order through its authorized Prop. SCO No.45, Ground Floor, Leela Bhawan Market, Patiala.
2. Flipkart, health amp; Happiness Private Limited, Warehouse Address:Khasra No.435, Road No.#4,Lal Dora, Ext. Mahipalpur, New Delhi-110037 through its authorized signatory.
3. Lenova (India) Private Limited,Fems Icon, Level 2, Doddenakundi village Marathahalli Outer Ring Road, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bangalore-560037 through its authorized signatory.

                                                                   …………Opposite Parties

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

                                      Sh. Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President

                                      Sh.Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member    

ARGUED BY

                                      Sh.Navdeep Sharma, counsel for complainant.

                                      OPs No.1&3 exparte.

                                      None for OP No.2

 ORDER

                                      JASJIT SINGH BHINDER,PRESIDENT

1. This is the complaint filed by Vishal Dogra (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against Motorola Customer Service Centre and others (hereinafter referred to as the OP/s).
2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant purchased one mobile make Motorola Moto E3 Power (Black 16 GB) vide tax invoice #FOYQK0021700080912, order ID OD207891157210912000 on dated 18.12.2016 for an amount of Rs.6749/- from OP No.2 on making the cash payment within the warranty of one year. The mobile was  being used by the complainant with very care and caution but after some time the mobile started giving problems in display, hanging, mic problem and did not work properly. The complainant brought the said facts to the notice of Op No.1 in the first week of January,2017 and after checking the same told that the defect in the mobile has been removed. But after some time the mobile again started giving same problem. The complainant again approached OP No.1 in the second week of March,2017 who after retaining the same returned the mobile to the complainant on 31.3.2017 stating that the defect in the mobile has been removed but the problem was not removed.Again the complainant approached the OP in the last week  of April,2017 who took the mobile phone of the complainant  and returned the same on 12.5.2017 with the assurance that now there is no problem but it was surprised to the complainant that the problem is still existing in the mobile in question.Due to non having of mobile, the complainant  is facing very difficulty and is suffering from mental, physical and monetory loss. There is thus deficiency in service on the party of the OPs.
3. On this back ground of the facts the complainant has filed this complaint with the prayer to accept the complaint by giving directions to the OPs to replace the said mobile phone and to provide a new one of the same model and price or to refund the sale price of the said mobile to the complainant and also to pay Rs.8,00,000/- as damages for causing mental agony and harassment to the complainant.
4. Upon notice OPs No.1&3 appeared through their operational Manager and filed written reply , OP no.2 appeared through its counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply.
5. In the reply filed by OPs No.1&3 it is submitted that the OPs are a separate entity and manufacturer of the Desktop/Laptop/Tablet personal computers and Smart phones etc under the brand name viz.”Lenovo” and the mobile in question is not manufactured/marketed by it. It is further submitted that though Motorola Mobility India Private Limited is a subsidiary of the OP, the management of both the companies  are different,  therefore, the complainant has to approach the correct party i.e. M/s Motorola Mobility India Private Limited for redressing his grievances and the complaint is liable to be dismissed agiasnt OPs No.1&3.
6. In the reply filed by OP No.2 preliminary objections have been raised to the effect that the present complaint filed by the complainant is an abuse of the due process of law; that the complainant has not approached the Hon’ble Forum with clean hands; that there is no cause of action against OP No.2 and as such the same is liable to be dismissed.
7. On merits, it is clarified that the product in question was sold by the OP but no warranty was given by it. It is further submitted hat the contents are related  with OP No.1 and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
8. In evidence, the complainant tendered his affidavit,Ex.CA, Ex.C1 coipy of service order dated 16.1.2017, Ex.C2 copy of service order dated 31.3.2018,Ex.C3 copy of bill dated 19.12.2016,Ex.C4 copy of service order dated 8.5.2017 and closed the evidence.
9. The ld. counsel for OP No.2 has made the statement that the written version filed on 6.4.2018 be ready as evidence on behalf of OP No.2 and closed the evidence.
10. The ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant  has purchased one mobile for Rs.6749/- from OP No.2 on making cash payment.The ld. counsel further argued that the complainant used mobile with care and caution but the mobile phone started giving problems. The ld. counsel further arged that the complainant brought the said facts to the notice of OP No.1, the authorized service centre in January,2017 who after checking told that the defects  have been removed.The ld. counsel further argued that after some time the mobile again started giving problems in the display and the complainant approached the OP. The OP No.1 again checked the mobile but the mobile was not repaired and prayed that the complaint  be allowed.
11. On the oher hand the ld. counsel for OP No.2 argued that Flipkart is the reseller of the goods manufactured/produced by others and do not manufacture any goods of its own. The ld. counsel further argued that the responsibility is of OPs No.1&3.So the complaint be dismissed against OP No.2.
12. In support of the complaint, the complainant tendered his affidavit,Ex.CA and has deposed as per the complaint.Ex.C1 is the job card in which it is stated that it is within warranty. It is also mentioned in Ex.C1  “cannot be  head”.Ex.C2 is the another service order in which touch screen was repaired. Ex.C3 is the invoice vide which mobile was purchased, Ex.C4 is the another service order.
13. In the present case, the OP No.2 only sells the products of other companies. OP No.3 is the manufacturer of the product and OP No.1 is the customer care service centre of the mobile. No rebuttal evidence has been lead by OPs No.1 to 3.The Operational Manager used to appear on their behalf but after 28.8.2018 none appeared on behalf of OPs No.1&3 and accordingly OPs No.1&3 were proceeded against exparte on 21.2.2019.
14. So it is clear that defective mobile was given to the complainant. As such the complaint stands allowed and OPs No.1&3 are directed to change the same with new one within 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. They are also directed to pay Rs.5000/- as compensation to the complainant.          

ANNOUNCED

DATED:5.11.2020       

                             Vinod Kumar Gulati             Jasjit Singh Bhinder

                                    Member                                       President