Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/1126/2019

Mr. Omkar Siyan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Motorola Excellence Centre - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

07 Jul 2020

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                                    ========

 

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/1126/2019
Date of Institution	:	20/12/2019
Date of Decision	:	07/07/2020

 

Omkar Siyan S/o Shri Amarnath Siyan, Resident of H.No.1217, Sector 33-C, Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

 

V E R S U S

 

 

[1]     Motorola Excellence Centre, 415/2, Mehrauli-Gurgaon Road, Sector 14, Gurugram (Haryana), through its Director.

 

[2]     M/s Three Vee Marketing Pvt. Limited, SCO 1028-29, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh, through its Directing Manager.

 

[3]     Sant Rameshwari Enterprises – Motorola and Lenovo Authorized Service Centre

 

1^st Computer Market, SCO 26, Dakshin Marg, Sector 20-D, Chandigarh, through its Authorized Representative.

 

…… Opposite Parties

QUORUM:	RATTAN SINGH THAKUR	PRESIDENT
	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	DR.S.K.SARDANA	MEMBER

                                                                       

PRESENT	:	None for Complainant.
	:	Opposite Parties Ex-parte.

 

PER Surjeet Kaur, Member

 

1.         The facts, in brief, are that the Complainant had purchased a mobile phone Moto Z2 Force from Opposite Party No.2 on 21.12.2018, for Rs.25,000/- vide bill Annexure C-1. After three days of its use, the said mobile gave problem with regard to screen pop-up and the same was reported to Opposite Party No.3 who after applying the glue/fixture returned the handset to the Complainant, but the mobile again gave similar problem, due to which the Complainant visited Opposite Parties atleast 10 time, but the problem could not be resolved. Eventually, the Complainant requested the Opposite Parties to replace the handset, but to no success. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
2.         Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case. However, despite service, nobody has appeared on behalf of Opposite Parties, therefore, they were proceeded against ex-parte.
3.         Complainant led evidence.      
4.         We have gone through the entire record with utmost care and circumspection.
5.         It is evident that the Complainant had purchased one Motorola Moto Z2 Force mobile handset for Rs.25,000/- vide invoice dated 21.12.2018 (Annexure C-1). It is the case of the Complainant that despite attempting their level best, the Opposite Parties failed to resolve the issue of screen pop-up in the mobile handset in question. It is also the case of the Complainant that he visited the Opposite Party No.3 not less than 10 times, but to no success. We do not find any supporting document, much less any job-sheet on the file issued by the Opposite Party No.3 to substantiate the same. In the absence of which, the allegations of the Complainant are hollow and thus liable to be discarded. There is only an e-mail dated 01.10.2019 (Annexure C-2) placed on record by the Complainant to show that the Opposite Parties while admitting the display problem in the mobile handset apologized for the inconvenience experienced by him and relegated him to the Service Centre for redressal of his grievance.
6.         Significantly, the Opposite Parties did not appear to contest the claim of the complainant and preferred to proceed against ex-parte. This act of the Opposite Parties draws an adverse inference against them. The non-appearance of the Opposite Parties 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.
7.         In these set of 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 have certainly and definitely indulged into unfair trade practice as they ought to have rectify the defect in the mobile handset or to refund the price thereof, which they failed to do and rather propelled this unwarranted, uncalled for litigation upon the Complainant. At any rate, the Opposite Parties even did not bother to redress the grievance of the Complainant, despite having approached for the same.  Thus, finding a definite deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties, we have no other alternative, but to allow the present complaint against the Opposite Parties.
8.         In our opinion, the Complainant had spent an amount of Rs.25,000/- to purchase the mobile handset in question having faith in the brand to facilitate himself and not for moving the Service Centre and then to this Forum for justice in the absence of proper service provided by the Opposite Parties.         It is worthwhile to mention that as the handset was used by the Complainant for around nine months, therefore, we deem it appropriate to deduct 40% of the invoice amount towards depreciation.
9.         For the reasons recorded above, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Parties, and the same is partly allowed. The Opposite Parties are, jointly and severally, directed:-

[a]    To pay Rs.15,000/- (after deducting 40% of the invoice price towards depreciation) to the Complainant;

 

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

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

10.         The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties; thereafter, they shall be liable for an interest @9% per annum on the amounts mentioned in sub-para [a] & [b] above from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid, apart from cost of litigation as in sub-para [c] above.
11.         The Complainant shall return the defective mobile handset in question to the Opposite Parties after the compliance of the order.
12.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

 

	Sd/-	Sd/-	Sd/-
07/07/2020	[Dr.S.K.Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]	[Rattan Singh Thakur]
	Member	Member	President
“Dutt”