Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/474/2017

Manoj Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Motorola India Pvt. Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Jasjit Singh Saini Adv.

31 Oct 2017

ORDER

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

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	474 of 2017
Date  of  Institution	:	16.06.2017
Date   of   Decision	:	31.10.2017

 

 

 

 

Manoj Kumar s/o Sh.Kundan Lal, R/o Flat No.1639, Sector 51-B, ESIC Society, Chandigarh.   

                               …..Complainant

Versus

1]  Motorola India Pvt. Ltd. through its authorised representative having its registered office at 415/2, Mehrauli, Gurgaon Road, Sector 14, Gurgaon 12001, Haryana.

2]  National Enterprises, SCO 1031, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh through its authorised representative.

3]  Sant Rameshwari Enter, SCO No.26, 1^st Floor, Sector 20-D, Chandigarh through its authorised representative.

                          ….. Opposite Parties

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN                 PRESIDENT

         MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA             MEMBER

                                SH.RAVINDER SINGH              MEMBER

                               

Argued by :     Sh.Jasjit Singh Saini, Adv. for complainant

                OPs No.2 & 3 exparte.

Defence of OP No.1 struck off.

 

  

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

 

          Briefly stated, the complainant purchased one Mobile Phone Moto G4 Plus from Opposite Party No.2 and paid Rs.15,200/- on 5.5.2016 (Ann.C-1) and it was carrying one year warranty.  It is averred that said mobile on its very first use had major issue as the Sim Card was not detected and had also major a software issues. The matter was reported to OP No.1 & Opposite Party No.3.  It is averred that Opposite Party No.3 assured to replace handset as it has not been used, but later refused and told to get it repaired.  It is also averred that the complainant apprised Opposite Party No.3 that the mobile handset has not at all been used and requested for replacement, but the same was denied.  Then complainant sent legal notice (Ann.C-2), but to no avail. Hence, this complaint has been filed alleging the above act & conduct of the OPs as deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

 

2]       The Opposite Party NO.1 & 2 did not turn up despite service of notice sent through regd. post on 23.6.2017, hence they were proceeded exparte vide order dated 26.7.2017.

 

         The Opposite Party No.3 though put in appearance through Sh.Manwar Singh, authorised agent, but failed to file reply and evidence despite availing opportunities and hence the defence of Opposite Party NO.1 was struck of vide order dated 24.10.2017.

 

3]       Complainant led evidence in support of his contentions.

 

4]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the complainant and have also perused the entire record.

 

5]       It is well clear from the invoice (Ann.C-1) that the complainant had spent Rs.15,200/- for the purchase of the handset in question i.e. Lenovo Moto G4 Plus on 4.4.2017.  The same was found defective when was put in use and job card dated 5.4.2011 placed on record reveals that the said mobile handset was presented to the Service Centre of OPs for repairs.  As per the averments of the complainant, he was guided by the Service Centre (OP No.3) of OP No.1 to approach the retailer for the replacement of the handset in question since the product had the Sim Tray issue and the Retailer also refused to entertain the request of the complainant, when was approached by the complainant.  All the averments of the complainant are duly supported by his duly sworn affidavit. 

         Further from the legal notice it is also clear that the complaint raised his grievance with the OPs with regard to the defects developed in the brand new handset. It is established that the complainant could not enjoy the trouble free functioning of the handset and evidently remained engaged in getting the handset replaced by visiting the OPs on various occasions.  We are of the considered opinion that now a days everybody is having short of time and spending lot of time in such futile activities, not only wastes one’s time, but also causes immense mental & physical harassment.  In view of the matter, the complaint is quite genuine.  

 

6]       The absence of Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 draws an adverse inference that despite having knowledge of the dispute in question, they chose not to appear and they did not come forward to defend the claim of the complainant for the simple reason that either they admit the claim of the complainant or left with nothing to contradict the claim raised by the complainants. Moreover, the Opposite Party NO.3 despite putting in appearance did not to file reply & evidence despite availing adjournments, which further shows that the Opposite Parties are at fault. Hence, the allegations of the complainant supported by duly sworn affidavit goes unrebutted and unchallenged. Therefore, the deficiency in service on the part of OPs is writ large.

 

7]       In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the opinion that the complaint deserves to be allowed against OPs. Accordingly, the complaint is allowed against OPs and they are jointly & severally directed as under:-

1. To refund an amount of Rs.15,200/-, to the complainant being the invoice price of the handset;
2. To pay an amount of Rs.3,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing him mental & physical harassment for deficiency in service;
3. To pay litigation expenses of Rs.2000/-.

 

         This order shall be complied with by the OPs within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the OPs shall also be liable to pay interest @9% p.a. on the compensation amount from the date of filing complaint till realization, apart from complying with the directions as at sub-para (i) & (iii) above.

8]       The complainant shall return the mobile handset, if not deposited with OPs, after receipt of the above awarded amount from the OPs, against receipt. 

         Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

31^st October, 2017                 

                                                                                      Sd/-

                                                                   (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

 (PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER