BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL.
Complaint Case No.103/2018.
Date of institution:24.04.2018.
Date of decision:22.10.2021.
Sameer S/o Sh. Jagdish R/o Ward No.12, Saini Mohalla Pundri, Distt. Kaithal.
…Complainant.
Versus
- Motorola Excellence Centre, 415/2, Mehrani-Gurgaon Road, Sector-14, near Maharana Partap Chowk, Gurugram, Haryana-122001.
- Famous Computer SCO No.19-20, Subhash Market near Mini Secretariat, Karnal Road, Kaithal (Care Centre of Motorola Mobile).
- Vishal R.K.Proprietor of Gadgets Club, No.284, Ist Main 9th Cross next to Barbar Shop, near Asdhar Building near Iyengar Bakery, Banglore, Karnataka, PIN-560092.
….Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act
CORAM: SMT. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT.
SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.
SH. SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Anil Saini, Advocate, for the complainant.
Ops exparte.
ORDER
NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT
Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) praying for issuance of following directions to them:-
To refund the sale price of Rs.12,999/- alongwith interest or replace the mobile phone with the new one.
To pay Rs.11,000/- as compensation on account of deficiency in services and negligence committed by the Ops
To pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment suffered by him.
To pay Rs.11,000/- as counsel fee and litigation expenses.
Or
Any other relief to which this commission deems fit and proper may also be awarded to the complainant.
In nutshell, the facts of present case are that the complainant purchased a refurbished mobile of Motorola Moto X Style 32 Black vide order No.24663351602 bearing IMEI No.352342070634852 HSN 84713010 vide invoice No.S3D7B5/1001043 dt. 23.09.2017 for a sum of Rs.12,999/- from the Op No.3 having warranty of 6 months through Snapdeal online shopping (Snapdeal reference No.SLP 1501859986 delivered on 27.09.2017). After a short period of one month of its purchase, the said mobile started giving problems like while display, the said mobile started showing red colour dots and started hanging. Charger and earphone were also not working properly. Complainant approached the Ops several times to remove the above-said defects but the Ops did not remove the defects from the mobile set. The complainant also sent various e-mails regarding the above-said problems but the Ops did not redress the grievances of complainant. So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of Ops and prayed for acceptance of complaint.
2. Upon notice, the Ops did not appear. Ops No.2 & 3 were proceeded against exparte vide order dt. 03.12.2018 of this commission and Op No.1 was proceeded against exparte vide order dt. 18.01.2021 of this commission.
3. Ld. Counsel for the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C4 and thereafter, closed the evidence.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for complainant and perused the case file carefully and minutely.
5. From the pleadings and evidence of the case, it is clear that the complainant purchased a mobile set in question for a sum of Rs.12,999/- from the Op No.3 as is clear from Annexure-C1. Complainant has contended that after a short period of one month of its purchase, the said mobile while display started showing red colour dots and started hanging. Charger and earphone were also not working properly. He approached the Ops several times to remove the above-said defects but the Ops did not remove the defects from the mobile set.
The contention of complainant has gone unrebutted as the Ops instead of contested the case have preferred not to appear before this commission and accordingly, they were proceeded against exparte. Thus, we have no other option but to accept the contention of complainant, which is duly supported by his affidavit and other supporting documents. These days having a mobile is a basic necessity and the Ops by not repairing the mobile of complainant have deprived him to use the same. Facing with the situation, we are of the view that it is a fit case where directions can be given to Ops to refund the cost of mobile set i.e. Rs.12,999/-. OPs also liable to compensate the complainant for mental agony and physical harassment caused to him alongwith litigation expenses.
7. Thus, in view of aforesaid discussion, the present complaint is allowed and Ops are directed in the following manner-
(i) To refund the amount of Rs.12,999/- (Twelve Thousand Nine Hundred and Ninety Nine) to the complainant on deposit of the mobile set in question alongwith accessories with the service-centre of Ops i.e. OP No.2.
(ii) To pay Rs.5,000/- (Five Thousand) as compensation on account of mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant including the litigation expenses to the complainant.
The Ops are further directed to comply with the aforesaid directions jointly and severally within the period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, failing which, they shall pay interest @ 5% per annum on the amount of Rs.12,999/-, from the date of this order i.e. 22.10.2021 till its realization. Certified copies of the order be sent to parties free of costs, as permissible under the rules. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
Dt.:22.10.2021.
(Neena Sandhu)
President.
(Sunil Mohan Trikha), (Suman Rana),
Member. Member.
Typed by: Sanjay Kumar, S.G.
