Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/409/2015

Animesh Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

In person

12 Jan 2016

ORDER

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

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	409 of 2015
Date  of  Institution	:	1.7.2015
Date   of   Decision	:	12.1.2016

 

 

 

 

 

Animesh Sharma son of late Sh. Rahul Dev Sharma, Currently working as an Advocate in the Punjab and Haryana High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh PIN 160001 and resident of house No.98, Sector 4, Mansa Devi Complex.

….Complainant

Vs.

1. Motorola Mobility India Pvt. Ltd. 415/2, Mehrauli Gurgaon road Sector 14, Gurgaon 122001, Haryana, India through its Managing Director.

 

2. EBay India Pvt. Ltd 14th floor, North Block, R-Tech Park, Western Express Highway, Gorgaon (East), Mumbai 400063, Maharashtra (India) through their authorized representative.

 

3. Technog 72/Techno Geek Services Plot No. 6973, Metro Cards, Kurla West 400098, Maharashtra through its authorized representative.

 

4. Vignesh  Services, being the authorized Motorola service Centre SCO No. 32, Sector 31D, Chandigarh through its Manager.

 

…… Opposite Parties 

 

BEFORE:    

                  

MRS.SURJEET KAUR                                  presiding MEMBER

SH. SURESH KUMAR SARDANA           MEMBER

 

 

For Complainant	:	In person
For Opposite Parties	:	Exparte.

 

 

 

PER SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, MEMBER

 

 

 

                The facts, in brief, are that the complainant on the assurance of Opposite Party No.3  that the Moto turbo mobile phone being sold on the website of Opposite Party No. 2 is having moto India warranty placed a order with Opposite Party No.2 on 20^th May 2015 for purchasing the same for a sum of Rs.36,999/- after a discount of Rs.4000/-, which was received by the complainant on 24.5.2015.  It has been alleged that within 30 day of receiving the handset it stopped working. The complainant took the phone with Opposite Party No.4 the authorized service centre of Motorola in Chandigarh.  But Opposite Party No.4 refused to repair the phone on the ground that the handset was purchased from Opposite Party No.2 and as such it did not come with Motorola warranty. The complainant also contacted Opposite Party No.1 but it also refused for the repair of the mobile on the same ground.  The complainant was even not allowed by Opposite Party No.2 to register a complaint on its webpage  for the reason that the Ebay guarantee was only for 30 days from the date of delivery. The complainant made various communications with Opposite Party No.2,3 and 1 for redressal of his grievance but to no effect. The complainant sought refund of the price of the handset from Opposite Parties No.2&3 but in vain. Alleging the aforesaid act on the part of the Opposite Parties deficiency in rendering service and indulgence into unfair trade practice this complaint has been filed.

         

2.                 Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case. However, since nobody appeared on behalf of Opposite Parties despite service, therefore, they were proceeded ex-parte.
3.           Complainant led evidence in support of his contentions.

 

4.          We have perused the record with utmost care and circumspection and have heard the complainant in person.

5.          In the present case, the averments of the complaint have gone unrebutted in the absence of the Opposite Parties who were duly served and preferred neither to appear in person, nor through their Counsel. It is established beyond all reasonable doubt that the complaint of the Complainant is genuine. The harassment suffered by the Complainant in visiting the Authorized Service Centre (Opposite Party No.4) to get his mobile handset repaired, is also writ large. The Opposite Parties No.1,  2, 3 and 4 neither rectified the defects in the mobile handset despite repeated endeavors, nor did they replace the defective handset with a new one. Thus, finding a definite deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties No.1, 2, 3 and 4 we have no other alternative, but to allow the present complaint against them.

6.          In the light of above observations, the present complaint succeeds against the Opposite Parties. The same is allowed qua them. We direct the Opposite Parties, jointly and severally, as under:- 

 

[a]     To refund Rs.36,999/- being the invoice price of the handset;

 

[b]     Pay Rs.10,000/- on account of deficiency in service and causing mental and physical harassment to the Complainant; 

 

[c]        Pay Rs.10,000/- towards costs of litigation;

 

 

                  

7.          This order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties; thereafter, they shall be liable for an interest @12% p.a. on the amount mentioned in sub-paras [a] & [b] above from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid, besides complying with the directions as in sub-para [c] above.      

 

8.          The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

         

Announced

12.1.2016                 

 

Sd/-

 (SURJEET KAUR)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

Sd/-

 (SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)

MEMBER