Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/741/2015

Rakesh Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Gaurav Bhardwaj

29 Aug 2016

ORDER

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

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

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/741/2015
Date  of  Institution	:	03/11/2015
Date   of   Decision	:	29/08/2016

 

 

 

 

 

Rakesh Kumar, O/o AGE, GE (U), Chandimandir Cantt., Panchkula, at present R/o H.No.713, Sec.16, Chandigarh.

 

…........... Complainant.

Vs

 

[1]  Motorola Mobility India Pvt. Limited, Building No.7, 12^th Floor, Tower-D, DLF Cyber Green, Phase-III, Gurgaon – 122002, through its Managing Director.

 

[2]  Sant Rameshwari Enterprises, SCO No.26, First Floor, Sector 20-D, Chandigarh, through its Manager.

 

[3]  WS Retail Services Pvt. Limited, Ozone Manay Tech. Park, No.56/18, ‘B’ Block, 9^th Floor, Garvebhavipalya, Hosur Road, Bangalore – 560068, Karnataka, through its Managing Director.

…........ Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:   DR. MANJIT SINGH             PRESIDENT

          SMT.SURJEET KAUR             MEMBER

 

Argued by: Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Counsel for Complainant.

                        Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 ex-parte.

            Sh. Devinder Kumar, Counsel for Opposite Party No.3.

 

PER SURJEET KAUR, MEMBER

 

          The matrix of the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for disposal of the present Consumer Complaint and emanating from the record, is that the Complainant had purchased a Motorola XT 1550 mobile handset from Flipkart.com for Rs.12,999/-, carrying a warranty of one year, vide retail invoice dated 10.08.2015 Annexure C-1. Since the said mobile handset starting display problem and many other problems apart from abruptly heating, the Complainant gave it to Opposite Party No.2 on 28.09.2015 for repairs vide job sheet Annexure C-2. It has been averred that the Complainant was assured that the mobile shall be returned after one week. However, despite repeated requests and personal entreaties to the Opposite Party No.2, they failed to repair the mobile handset, resultantly it was lying with them since 28.09.2015. When all the frantic efforts made by the Complainant, failed to fructify, as a measure of last resort, he filed the present Consumer Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties tantamount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, seeking various reliefs.

 

2.      Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case. However, nobody appeared on behalf of Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 despite service, therefore, they were proceeded ex-parte.

 

3.      Opposite Party No.3 contested the Complaint and filed the written statement, inter alia, pleading that the product in issue was sold by it carrying manufacturer’s warranty as provided by the manufacturer. Hence it has nothing to do with the warranty provided on the products being the sole liability and discretion of the manufacturing company. Further, the liability to provide after sale services does not lay upon the answering Opposite Party as it is neither the Manufacturer nor its Authorized Service Centre. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, Opposite Party No.3 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

4.      Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record in support of their contentions.

 

5.      We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and have also perused the record.

 

6.      The case of the Complainant is that he purchased one Motorola XT 1550 mobile handset from Flipkart.com with one year warranty for Rs.12,999/- vide retail invoice Annexure C-1 on 10.08.2015. Annexure C-2 dated 28.09.2015 is the job-sheet with the problem description relevant to display. The allegation of the Complainant is that the Opposite Party No.2 did not repair the handset in question and rather keep it in its custody since 28.09.2015, till date.  

 

7.      The Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 did not appear to contest the claim of the complainant, and preferred to proceed against ex-parte. This act of the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 draws an adverse inference against them. The non-appearance of the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 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.

 

8.      The stand taken by Opposite Party No.3 (the Seller of the mobile handset) is that as it is only the Seller, so is unable to honour the warranty terms & conditions of the manufacturer.

 

9.      Evidently, the Complainant purchased the mobile handset on 10.08.2015 and gave it to Opposite Party No.2 for the required repairs on 28.09.2015, meaning thereby that the handset was used only for a few days after its purchase. Opposite Party No.2 instead of repairing the mobile handset under warranty and returning the mobile handset to the Complainant, chose to keep the same in its custody, without any plausible justification.  Undoubtedly, the Complainant had spent an amount of Rs.12,999/- 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.
10.      In our opinion due to the irresponsible attitude of the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, the Complainant has certainly suffered a lot. We feel that it was the duty of the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 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 mobile handset in question is still lying in the possession of the Service Centre (Opposite Party No.2).

 

11.      In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 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 No.1 & 2, and the same is allowed, qua them. The Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 are jointly and severally directed:-

 

[a]  To refund Rs.12,999/- to the Complainant being the invoice price of the mobile handset;

 

[b]  To pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation for mental agony & harassment suffered by the complainant;

 

[c]  To pay Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation.

 

          The complaint against Opposite Party No.3 fails and is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. 

 

12.      The above said order be complied with by the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, 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.

 

13.      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

“Dutt”