Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/45/2016

Navneet Verma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Motorola Mobility India Private Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

06 May 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	45/2016
Date of Institution	:	18.01.2016
Date of Decision	:	06.05.2016

 

                                                

                                                         

Mr.Navneet Verma s/o Late Shri Shameshwar Dass Verma r/o H.No.138, CHB Flats, Sector 55, Chandigarh.  

                                      ...  Complainant.

Versus

 

1. Manager, Customer Care, Motorola Mobility India Private Ltd., K. Raheja IT Park, Hi-tech City, Madhapur, Hyderabad

 

2^nd Address: 

Customer Satisfaction Manager, Motorola Mobility India Private Ltd., Build No.7A, 12^th Floor, Tower-D, DLF Cyber Green Phase-II, Gurgaon-122002 (Haryana).

 

2. Motorola Authorized Service Centre, B2X, Sant Rameshwari Enterprises, SCO 26, 1^st Floor, Sector 20-D,Chandigarh -160020 through its Branch Head.

…. Opposite Parties.

 

 

BEFORE:   SHRI RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

SHRI JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER

SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

Argued by: Complainant in person.

                   OPs exparte.

 

PER RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

1.           In brief, the case of the complainant is that  he purchased a mobile handset MOTO G (2^nd Gen)  online through Flipkart (WS Retail Service Pvt. Ltd.) vide Invoice dated 26.12.2014 for a sum of Rs.12,999/-.  From the day one, the mobile handset started giving problems of unclear sound, low battery backup, bad microphone, defected switching on-off system, hanging etc.  On 16.10.2015, the mobile phone in question hanged and after switching off, it stopped working (not switched on again) and, therefore, he approached OP No.2 and landed the mobile handset with it vide job sheet (Annexure C-2).  Thereafter, he made repeated visits to OP No.2 to collect the mobile handset but every time it provided lip service and did not return the handset after repairs.  Finally, he made a registered complaint in this regard with OP No.1  on 18.11.2015 who asked him to visit the service center (OP No.2).  Accordingly, he visited OP No.2 but the mobile handset was not repaired whereas it agreed to give the loaner set in place of his mobile handset.  However, the loaner mobile handset was having a number of problems and, therefore, the same was returned instantly and a request to repair his own mobile handset was made.  The complainant also made online complaint with an e-mediation of consumer complaints portal i.e. core.nic.in on 02.12.2015 (Annexure C-3).  Thereafter he received response on 12.01.2016 through e-mail (Annexure C-4) from e-mediation centre of consumer portal that the OPs did not give any response to the portal and he was advised to approach the Forum.  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.           Despite due service through registered post, the Opposite Parties failed to put in appearance and as a result thereof they were ordered to be proceeded against exparte.
3.           We have heard the complainant, in person, and have gone through the documents on record.
4.           In his exparte evidence, the complainant has also placed on record a copy of the online invoice dated 26.12.2014 as Annexure C-1 from which it is evident that he had purchased the mobile handset in question for Rs.10,999/-.   It is also apparent from the copy of the job sheet (Annexure C-2) that he approached the service center i.e. OP No.2 for the rectification of the defects of the mobile phone mentioned therein.   The complainant has also placed on a copy of online complaint made to the e-mediation center of consumer portal i.e. core.nic.in and reply thereto as Annexures C-3 and C-4 respectively. The complainant has specifically averred that the OPs have failed to redress his genuine grievance within the warranty period despite his repeated visits and requests.   Non-repairing of the mobile handset within the warranty period by the OPs itself sufficient to conclude that the same is suffering from some major defect and that the same cannot be set right by effecting repairs.  Moreover, the Opposite Parties despite due service did not turn up to contest the case and, as such, it can be concluded without any hesitation that either it admits the claim of the complainant or has nothing to say in the matter. 
5.           Therefore considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and weighing the affidavit of the complainant in evidence, we hold that the mobile phone in question was a defective one and the OPs have exhibited gross negligence and deficiency by not replacing the same.
6.           In view of the above discussion, the present complaint deserves to be allowed and the same is accordingly allowed. The opposite parties are directed as under ;-

1. To replace mobile handset  of the complainant with a new one of the same make and model with fresh warranty.
2. To pay Rs.2,000/-  as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment to the complainant.
3. To pay Rs.3,500/- as costs of litigation.

This order be complied with by the Opposite Parties, within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the Ops shall be liable to refund the price of the mobile handset and the compensation amount of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant with interest @9% per annum from the date of this order till actual payment besides payment of litigation costs.

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

Announced

06/05/2016                                                                                    sd/- 

(RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

sd/-

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER

 

sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER