Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/258/2018

Baljeet Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Motorola Excellence Centre - Opp.Party(s)

Devinder Kumar

21 Dec 2018

ORDER

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

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/258/2018
Date  of  Institution	:	07/06/2018
Date   of   Decision	:	21/12/2018

 

 

 

 

 

Baljeet Singh, Data Centre, F-Block, 2^nd Level, Nehru Hospital, PGI, Sector 12, Chandigarh.

……… Complainant

 

Versus

 

(1)  Motorola Excellence Centre, 415/2, Mehrauli-Gurgaon Road, Sector 14, Near Maharana Pratap Chowk, Gurugram, Haryana – 122001, through its Managing Director/ Authorized Signatory.

 

(2)  M/s Sant Rameshwari Enterprises (Service Centre), SCO 26, 1^st Floor, Sector 20-D, Chandigarh, through its Branch Manager.

 

(3)  M/s Flipkart Internet Pvt. Limited, Vaishnavi Summit, No.6-B, 7^th Main, 80 Feet Road, 3^rd Block, Koramangala, Bangalore – 560034 India, through its Managing Director.

……. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:   SH. RATTAN SINGH THAKUR      PRESIDENT

SMT.SURJEET KAUR             MEMBER

 

For Complainant	:	Sh. Devinder Kumar, Advocate.
For OPs No.1 & 2	:	Ex-parte.
For OP No.3	:	Sh. Rohit Kumar, Advocate.

 

PER SURJEET KAUR, MEMBER

 

 

          Sh. Baljeet Singh – Complainant has filed this Consumer Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against Motorola Excellence Centre and others (hereinafter called the Opposite Parties), alleging that he purchased a brand new Motorola mobile handset, carrying one year warranty, from Opposite Party No.3 vide retail invoice dated 17.10.2017, for a sum of Rs.11,400/-. It has been alleged that during Jan. 2018 and on 09.05.2018, the Complainant faced certain issues with the said mobile handset and accordingly, took the same to the Service Centre (Opposite Party No.2), who after rectifying the defects, returned the handset to him. Thereafter, in the month of May, 2018, the Complainant faced problem in the Display of the mobile handset and thus, approached the Service Centre on 22.05.2018. Despite the handset within the warranty period, the Opposite Party No.2 demanded a sum of Rs.5200/- as repair charges. The Complainant called the Customer Care of Opposite Party No.1 and also sent e-mails (Annexure C-3 colly) to do the needful, but they after lingering on the matter on one pretext or the other, eventually, concluded that the handset being liquid damaged was out of warranty. With the cup of woes brimming, the Complainant has filed the instant Consumer Complaint, alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties.

 

2.      Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case.

 

3.      Nobody appeared on behalf of Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 despite service, therefore, they were proceeded ex-parte.
4.      Opposite Party No.3 contested the claim of the Complainant and filed its reply, inter alia, admitting the factual matrix of the case. It has been pleaded that answering Opposite Party is merely a market place which offers a platform to third party vendors/ sellers and third party buyers to transact inter-se. The sole grievance of the Complainant was against the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 and there was nothing against the answering Opposite Party. Thus, denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, Opposite Party No.3 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

 

5.      Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record in support of their contentions.

 

6.      We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and also perused the record with utmost care and circumspection.

 

7.      Significantly, the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 did not appear to contest the claim of the Complainant and preferred to proceed against ex-parte. This act of the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 draws an adverse inference against them. The non-appearance of the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 shows that they have nothing to say in their defence against the allegations made by the complainant. Therefore, the assertions of the complainant go unrebutted and uncontroverted.

 

8.      In the present circumstances, it is established beyond all reasonable doubts that the complaint of the Complainant is genuine as he has been made to run from pillar to post for no fault on his part. The harassment suffered by the Complainant is also writ large. The Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 have certainly and definitely indulged into unfair trade practice as they ought to have resolved the matter by promptly arranging the replacement of the handset with a new one or to get the handset of the Complainant repaired, which they failed to do and rather propelled this unwarranted, uncalled for litigation upon the Complainant. At any rate, the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 even did not bother to redress the grievance of the Complainant, despite having approached for the same by the Complainant time & again. Thus, finding a definite deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, we have no other alternative, but to allow the present complaint against the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2.

 

9.      For the reasons recorded above, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, and the same is partly allowed. The Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 are, jointly and severally, directed:-

[a]  To refund Rs.11,400/- being the invoice price of the handset along with interest @7% p.a. from the date of its purchase, till realization;

[b]  To pay to the complainant Rs.5,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment;

[c]  To pay to the complainant Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation.

          The Complaint against Opposite Party No.3 fails and is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. 

10.      The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2; thereafter, they shall be liable for an interest @9% per annum on the amount mentioned in sub-para [a] above from the date of purchase, till it is paid. The compensation amount as per sub-para [b] above shall carry interest @9% per annum from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid, apart from cost of litigation as in sub-para [c].
11.      The Complainant shall return the defective mobile handset in question, if it is in his possession, to the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, after the compliance of the order.
12.      Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

21^st Dec., 2018                                                                      

Sd/-

(RATTAN SINGH THAKUR)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(SURJEET KAUR)

       MEMBER

 

 “Dutt”