Mr.Mayank Khanna son of Sh.Sanjeev Khanna, resident of H.No.22, Majitha Road, Amritsar.
Complainant
Versus
- Motorola Excellence Centre, 415/2, Mehrauli, Sector-14, Gurgaon Road, Gurgaon-122001 through its Chairman/ Managing Director/ Principle Officer.
- AA Electronics, 1st Floor, Near Kamal Palace, Batala Road, Amritsar through its Proprietor/ Partner/ Principal Officer.
- Amiable Electronics Private Limited, No.1/B, Indospace Logistics Park, Pudovoyal, Durainallur Village, Ponneri Taluk, Thiruvalluvar-601206, Tamil Nadu through its Proprietor/ Partner/ Principal Officer.
Opposite Parties
Complaint under section 12 and 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (As amended upto date).
Present: For the Complainant: Sh.Deepinder Singh, Advocate.
For the Opposite Parties: Exparte.
Coram
Mr.Anoop Sharma, Presiding Member
Ms.Rachna Arora, Member
Order dictated by:
Ms.Rachna Arora, Member.
1. The complainant has brought the instant complaint under section 12 and 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that the complainant purchased one Motorola G Plus Mobile handset from Opposite Party No.3 vide invoice No.TN-MAA4-167590221-2299 dated 14.09.2016 for Rs.14,999/- with one year warranty being manufactured/ marketed by Opposite Party No.1 and Opposite Party No.2 is the authorized service centre of Opposite Party No.1, hence the complainant is consumer as provided under the Act and is competent to invoke the jurisdiction of the Forum. Said mobile hand set became non functional and the display become blank within few days of its use and the complaint to the effect was made to Opposite Party No.2 who kept the Mobile Set in question with it and returned the same after a week after rectifying the same twice by changing its motherboard and display. Said Mobile Set in question again became defective as it stopped charging and again complaint was lodged with Opposite Party No.2 on 27.6.2017 and it was again rectified by Opposite Party No.2, but it was not to the satisfaction of the complainant as the Mobile Set in question oftenly did not charge and became dead and ultimately the Mobile Set in question became dead on 1.8.2017 and was handed over to Opposite Party No.2 and the said Opposite Party issued the job sheet on 9.8.2017 after lot of deliberation and the said Mobile Set in question is lying with Opposite Party No.2 till the filling of the present complaint as according to them the requisite parts are not available with them and told the complainant to come later. Thereafter, inspite of several personal visits and calls by the complainant, the Opposite Parties failed to rectify the said mobile set of the complainant till the filing of the present complaint. Aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties in not repairing the Mobile Set in question to the satisfaction of the complainant inspite of warranty is an act of deficiency of services, mal practices, unfair trade practice and has caused lot of mental tension, harassment and inconvenience besides financial loss to the complainant. Vide this complaint, the complainant has prayed for the following reliefs through the instant complaint.
a) Opposite Parties be directed to replace the Mobile Set in question with new one of same make and model or better make and model or in alternative refund Rs.14,999/- with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of payment till realization.
b) Opposite Parties be directed to pay the compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant.
C) Opposite Parties be directed to pay the adequate cost of the litigation.
d) Any other consequential relief to which the complainant is entitled to under the law, equity, justice and fairplay be also awarded.
Hence, this complaint.
2. Upon notice, initially Sh.Govind Kumar, Engineer appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.1, but thereafter none appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.1, hence Opposite Party No.1 was proceeded against exparte. Similarly, inspite of due service, none put in appearance on behalf of other Opposite Parties and as such, all the Opposite Parties were ordered to be proceeded against exparte.
3. In his bid to prove the case, complainant tendered his duly sworn affidavit Ex.C1 in support of the allegations made in the complaint and also produced copies of documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C4 and closed the exparte evidence.
4. We have heard the ld.counsel for the complainant and have carefully gone through the evidence on record.
5. From the appraisal of the evidence on record, it becomes evident that the complainant purchased one Motorola G Plus Mobile handset from Opposite Party No.3 vide invoice No.TN-MAA4-167590221-2299 dated 14.09.2016 for Rs.14,999/-, copy of bill accounts for Ex.C4, with one year warranty being manufactured/ marketed by Opposite Party No.1 and Opposite Party No.2 is the authorized service centre of Opposite Party No.1, hence the complainant is consumer as provided under the Act and is competent to invoke the jurisdiction of the Forum. Said mobile hand set became non functional and the display become blank within few days of its use and the complaint to the effect was made to Opposite Party No.2 who kept the Mobile Set in question with it and returned the same after a week after rectifying the same twice by changing its motherboard and display. Said Mobile Set in question again became defective as it stopped charging and again complaint was lodged with Opposite Party No.2 on 27.6.2017 and it was again rectified by Opposite Party No.2, but it was not to the satisfaction of the complainant as the Mobile Set in question oftenly did not charge and became dead and ultimately the Mobile Set in question became dead on 1.8.2017 and was handed over to Opposite Party No.2 and the said Opposite Party issued the job sheet on 9.8.2017, copy of job sheet accounts for Ex.C3, after lot of deliberation and the said Mobile Set in question is lying with Opposite Party No.2 till the filling of the present complaint as according to them the requisite parts are not available with them and told the complainant to come later. Thereafter, inspite of several personal visits and calls by the complainant, the Opposite Parties failed to rectify the said mobile set of the complainant till the filing of the present complaint. Aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties in not repairing the Mobile Set in question to the satisfaction of the complainant inspite of warranty is an act of deficiency of services, mal practices, unfair trade practice and has caused lot of mental tension, harassment and inconvenience besides financial loss to the complainant. The evidence produced by the complainant has gone unrebutted on record as the Opposite Parties, despite due service, did not opt to appear and contest the proceedings. In this way, the Opposite Parties have impliedly admitted the correctness of the allegations made in the complaint. It also shows that Opposite Parties have no defence to offer or defend the complaint. The complainant has sought for relief to replace the Mobile Set in question with new one of same make and model or better make and model or in alternative refund Rs.14,999/- with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of payment till realization besides compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/-. In our considered view, all the Opposite Parties are jointly, severally and co-extensively liable to refund the amount of Rs.14,999/- to the complainant. But however, the claim for compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- is concerned, the same appears to be exorbitant and excessive. The rationale behind grant of compensation has been to compensate a party of the loss occasioned by it. It is none of the intention of the legislature while legislating the Consumer Protection Act to enrich a particular party at the cost of the other. The compensation has to be awarded in commensuration with the loss occasioned to the complainant. In our considered view, ends of justice would be fully met if the complainant is awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.4000/- and we award the same accordingly. Besides this, the complainant is also entitled to litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.2000/-. Opposite Parties are also directed to deposit Rs.1000/- in the Consumer Legal Aid Account of this Forum. The compliance of this order be made by the Opposite Parties within 30 days from the date of order, failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to get the order enforced through the indulgence of this Forum. The complaint stands allowed exparte accordingly. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.
Announced in Open Forum.
Dated: 24.10.2017.
