Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/267/2016

Preet Kamal Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

29 Aug 2016

ORDER

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

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

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/267/2016
Date  of  Institution	:	20/04/2016
Date   of   Decision	:	29/08/2016

 

 

 

 

 

Preet Kamal Singh S/o Sh. Avtar Singh Sachdeva, R/o H.No.480, Phase-10, Mohali, Punjab – 160062.

 

 …………… Complainant.

 

VERSUS

 

(1)  Motorola Mobility India Pvt. Limited, Bagmane Pech Park, No.66/1, Plot No.5, 4^th and 5^th Floor, C.V. Raman Nagar, Bangalore, through its Managing Director.

 

(2)  B2X Customer Care Company of Motorola, Sant Rameshwari Enterprises, SCO 26, 1^st Floor, Sector 20-D, Chandigarh – 160020, through its Branch Head.

 

……………  Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:    DR.MANJIT SINGH            PRESIDENT

           MRS.SURJEET KAUR           MEMBER

           SH.SURESH KUMAR SARDANA    MEMBER

 

For Complainant	:	Complainant in person.
For Opposite Parties	:	Ex-parte.

 

PER SURJEET KAUR, MEMBER

 

 

          The factual matrix in epigrammatic form of the present Complaint are that the Complainant purchased Moto G 2^nd Generation mobile phone for Rs.11,654/- through Flipkart.com vide invoice dated 07.02.2015 (Annexure C-1). It has been alleged that soon after its purchase, the aforesaid mobile phone started giving various troubles i.e. network problem, showing charging indicator even without connecting charger, draining of battery and call drop due to network problem etc. Accordingly, the mobile handset was deposited with M/s Vignesh Services Chandigarh – an Authorized Service Centre of Motorola on 22.09.2015, who after changing its motherboard, returned the handset to the Complainant on 05.10.2015, but still the problems persisted and it did not work properly. In the meantime, the Service Centre was changed to M/s Sant Rameshwari Enterprises (Opposite Party No.2). The Complainant visited its premises on 07.10.2015 and reported the problems which were being faced in the set at that time. However, the set was taken again for getting the same repaired vide job-sheet Annexure C-3. When the phone was received by the Complainant after its repairs, it was noticed that the same problems were persisting in the set and it was once again given on 21.11.2015 to Opposite Party No.2 vide job-sheet Annexure C-4. It was received after 20 days without any rectification. For the fourth time the mobile set was returned to the Opposite Party No.2 on 12.01.2016 vide job sheet Annexure C-5 as the service centre told that after doing software troubleshooting it would work properly. At the time of receiving back the handset, it was noticed that there were dots on the screen phone as it was kept by the service centre for display change and got phone back after 14 days with same problem. On 02.02.2016 again the phone was given to Opposite Party No.2 vide job sheet Annexure C-6 as the same problems still persisted. When the Service Centre – Opposite Party No.2 was visited by the Complainant on 08.02.2016 for collecting the set, it was found that the phone had some dots and service centre again kept the phone for screen replacement vide job sheet Annexure C-6A. Despite keeping the mobile set for such a long time, Opposite Parties could not rectify the defects. The Complainant also sent various e-mails, made telephone calls and sent notices to set right the defects or replace the set. One such notice was sent to Opposite Party through registered post on 26.03.2016 calling upon the Opposite Parties to replace the mobile set or refund its price. Despite all this, no positive response was received from the Opposite Parties. With the cup of woes brimming, the Complainant has filed the instant consumer complaint, alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties.

 

2.      Pursuant to the notice issued, initially Sh. Manwar Singh, Manager of the OPs put appearance on their behalf and the case was adjourned for filing their reply and evidence. However, subsequently neither the reply and evidence were filed nor anybody put appearance on behalf of the Opposite Parties, therefore, they were proceeded ex-parte.

 

3.      We have heard the Complainant and have perused the record. 

 

4.      It is evident from Annexure C-1, coupled with the affidavit of the Complainant that he purchased one Moto G 2^nd Generation mobile handset for Rs.11,654/- through Flipkart.com vide invoice dated 07.02.2015 (Annexure C-1). The allegation of the Complainant is that when the said mobile handset started giving problems, he approached the Service Centre of the Opposite Parties and reported the matter. However, even after changing the motherboard and battery, the problems persisted and the mobile handset did not work properly.

 

5.      Annexure C-2 is the job-sheet/ customer information slip dated 22.09.2015. Again, the mobile handset was deposited with the Opposite Party No.2 (the new/changed Service Centre) vide job-sheet Annexure C-3. When the mobile handset was collected from Opposite Party No.2, after requisite repairs, the same problems were persisting in the handset and again it was given to Opposite Party No.2 vide job-sheet Annexure C-4. Further, Annexure C-5 to C-6/A are the various job-sheets according to which the mobile handset was given to Opposite Party No.2 for necessary repairs. Annexure C-7 is the legal notice by the Complainant with the grievance that neither the necessary repairs were done, nor the mobile handset was handed over to him and the same is lying with the Service Centre, till date. 

 

6.      Evidently, the mobile handset of the Complainant is still lying with the Opposite Parties. Undoubtedly, the Complainant had spent an amount of Rs.11,654/- to purchase the mobile handset in question having faith in the brand to facilitate himself and not for moving the Service Centre and then to this Forum for justice in the absence of proper service provided by the Opposite Parties.

 

7.      The Opposite Parties did not appear to contest the claim of the complainant, and preferred to proceed against ex-parte. This act of the Opposite Parties draws an adverse inference against them. The non-appearance of the Opposite Parties shows that they have nothing to say in their defence against the allegations made by the complainant. Therefore, the assertions of the complainant go unrebutted & uncontroverted. As such, the same are accepted as correct and the deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties is proved.

 

8.      In our opinion due to the irresponsible attitude of the Opposite Parties, the Complainant has certainly suffered a lot. We feel that it was the duty of the Opposite Parties to satisfy the Complainant by getting his mobile handset repaired in a perfect manner or replace it with a new one, but they have miserably failed to do so. Therefore, the act of the Opposite Parties in not rectifying the defective mobile handset, especially when it is within the warranty period proves deficiency in service on their part, which certainly has caused immense, mental and physical harassment to the complainant. Importantly, the Tablet in question is still lying in the possession of the Service Centre.

 

9.      In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Parties are found deficient in giving proper service to the complainant and having indulged in unfair trade practice. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Parties, and the same is allowed, qua them. The Opposite Parties are jointly and severally directed  to:-

 

[a]  To refund Rs.11,654/- to the Complainant being the invoice price of Moto G 2^nd Generation mobile handset;

 

[b]  To pay Rs.3,000/- as compensation for mental agony & harassment suffered by the complainant;

 

[c]  To pay Rs.3,000/- as costs of litigation.

 

10.      The above said order be complied with by the Opposite Parties, within 30 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amount at Sr. No. [a] & [b] above shall carry interest @12% per annum from the date of filing of the present Complaint, till actual payment, besides payment of litigation costs.

 

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

Announced

29^th August, 2016                                            

Sd/-

[DR.MANJIT SINGH]

PRESIDENT

                                               

Sd/-

[SURJEET KAUR]

MEMBER 

 

Sd/-                        

[SURESH KUMAR SARDANA]                                                                                                   

                                                                             MEMBER

 

“Dutt”