DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA

CC.No.18 of 20-01-2017

Decided on 03-07-2017

Ashish Devgan

........Complainant

Versus

1.Motorola Mobility India Pvt. Ltd., 415/2, Mehrauli-Gurgaon Road, Sector-14 Near Maharana Partap Chowk, Gurgaon-122001.

2.AHD Communication, 1^st Floor, Bhai Ghanaya Market, G.T Road Near Bus Stand, Amritsar.

.......Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM

Sh.M.P Singh Pahwa, President.

Sh.Jarnail Singh, Member.

Present:-

For the complainant: Sh.Navdeep Singh, Advocate.

For opposite parties: Ex-parte.

ORDER

M.P Singh Pahwa, President

1. The complainant Ashish Devgan (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against opposite parties Motorola Mobility India Pvt. Ltd. and Others (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties).

2. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that on 3.10.2016, he purchased one mobile handset Moto Turbo of brand Motorola from Flipkart website. Its original cost was Rs.31,399/- including tax. The complainant purchased the mobile handset after getting promotional discount for Rs.12,599/-. On 10.10.2016, the mobile handset was delivered to the complainant's address.

3. It is alleged that after few days, the mobile handset started malfunctioning and several times restarted automatically. The matter was reported to Flipkart. It was reported that the mobile handset is having one year warranty and it will be replaced from Motorola care directly. On next day, the mobile handset started malfunctioning and it became totally dead. The complainant made communication with Motorola Customer Care regarding this. Opposite party No.1 advised the complainant to bring the defective item in its Service Centre Amritsar. As such, the brother of the complainant deposited the mobile handset to the service center of Motorola i.e. opposite party No.2 on 30.11.2016. Opposite party No.2 has acknowledged the receipt of the mobile handset and revealed that there is problem in 'C0002-Ringer/Speakerphone and C0019-Power On/Off Issues'. Opposite party No.2 also assured that the mobile handset is within warranty and it has to replace the malfunctioned part of the mobile handset. The complainant was also asked to visit after 9-10 days, so that mobile handset can be repaired, but after repeated visits and correspondence, opposite party No.2 has not done the needful and complainant was asked to wait for more time. The complainant also got issued a legal notice dated 5.1.2017 to opposite parties. Thereafter the executive of opposite parties namely Harish Kumar replied via e-mail, but despite e-mail, no action was taken.

   On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties. He has claimed for refund of original cost with interest; compensation to the tune of Rs.70,000/- and litigation expenses. Hence, this complaint.

4. Upon notice, none appeared on behalf of opposite parties. As such, ex-parte proceedings were taken against them.

5. Complainant was asked to produce evidence.

6. In support of his claim, the complainant has tendered into evidence photocopy of tax invoice, (Ex.C1); photocopy of service record, (Ex.C2); photocopies of e-mails, (Ex.C3 and Ex.C5); photocopy of notice, (Ex.C4); his affidavit dated 14.6.2017, (Ex.C6) and closed the evidence.

7. We have heard A.R of complainant and gone through the file carefully.

8. A.R of complainant has reiterated his stand as taken in the complaint and detailed above. It is further submitted by A.R of complainant that invoice, (Ex.C1) proves that the complainant has purchased the mobile handset from Flipkart and it is manufactured by opposite party No.1. The mobile handset was delivered at Bathinda. Ex.C2, is the service record issued by opposite party No.2. It proves that since 30.11.2016, the mobile handset is in the custody of opposite party No.2. Opposite party No.2 has failed to do the needful. The inference can be drawn that there is some manufacturing defect. The complainant has also received e-mail from opposite party No.1 as Ex.C5 wherein it has also admitted that the matter has gone beyond the normal support situations, but despite this admission, no action has been taken by opposite party No.2. Therefore, deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties stands proved. The mobile handset was handed over to opposite party No.2 shortly after purchase. Opposite party No.2 has failed to do the needful. The inference can be drawn that there is some manufacturing defect.The complainant is entitled to refund of the price of the mobile handset and compensation as prayed for. Opposite parties have not come forward to contest the claim of the complainant. There is no reason to discard the evidence of the complainant.

9. We have given careful consideration to these submissions.

10. The complainant has pleaded that he has purchased the mobile handset, manufactured by opposite party No.1. This fact stand proved from the invoice, (Ex.C1). It is also case of the complainant that the mobile handset is lying with opposite party No.2 and same is not working. Ex.C2, is the service record issued by opposite party No.2. It proves that the complainant handed over the mobile handset to opposite party No.2 on 30.11.2016 and problem reported was 'ringer/speakerphone issues; power on/off issues'. Opposite party No.2 has failed to do the needful. Ex.C5, is e-mail issued by opposite party No.1 wherein it is admitted that the matter has gone beyond normal support situations and opposite party No.1 will give update, but as per complainant, no further action has been taken in the matter. Opposite parties have not come forward to contest this claim. Therefore, it is proved that they have failed to repair the mobile handset.

    Of-course, the complainant has alleged that there is some manufacturing defect in the mobile handset, but there is no expert evidence. Mere allegations cannot prove any manufacturing defect. As per service record, (Ex.C2), problem was relating to 'ringer/speakerphone issues, power on/off issues'. From these problems also, it can not be concluded that there is manufacturing defect in the mobile handset.

11. For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is partly accepted with Rs.3000/- as cost and compensation against opposite parties. Opposite parties are directed to handover the mobile handset in question to the complainant after its repair as per terms and conditions of warranty.

12. The compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

13. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases.

14. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record.

    Announced:-

    03-07-2017

    (M.P Singh Pahwa)

    President

     

     

    (Jarnail Singh)

    Member