Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/727/2015

Sarvesh Atri - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Gaurav Bhardwaj

02 Nov 2016

ORDER

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

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

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/727/2015
Date  of  Institution	:	26/10/2015
Date   of   Decision	:	02/11/2016

 

 

 

 

 

Sarvesh Atri, R/o H.No.3239/2, Sector 41-D, Chandigarh [working at Expert Rating Solutions, Ground Floor, Block-D, DLF IT Park, Chandigarh].

 …………… Complainant.

VERSUS

 

(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)  Vignesh Services, SCO No.32, 1^st Floor, Sector 31, Chandigarh, through its Manager.

 

(3)  W.S. 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:    MRS.SURJEET KAUR           PRESIDING MEMBER

           SH.SURESH KUMAR SARDANA    MEMBER

 

For Complainant	:	Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate.
For OPs No. 1 and 2	:	Ex-parte.
For OP No.3	:	Sh. Devinder Kumar, Advocate.

 

PER SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, MEMBER

 

 

          The factual matrix in epigrammatic form of the present Complaint are that the Complainant had purchased one Moto-G (2^nd Gen) mobile handset from Flipkart.com for Rs.12,999/-, carrying one year warranty. The mobile was delivered by Opposite Party No.3 vide retail invoice dated 15.10.2014. It has been alleged that the display of the said mobile handset went blank on 10.09.2015 and was given to Opposite Party No.2 for repairs on 11.09.2015. The mobile handset was assured to be returned by Opposite Party No.2 after 3-4 days. However, the Opposite Parties did not return the mobile handset and kept on delaying the matter on one pretext or the other. It has been further alleged that in the meanwhile, the warranty of the mobile handset expired on 14.10.2015. The Complainant had duly raised the issue with the Opposite Parties, but they were shifting the burden on one another rather than taking steps to redress the grievance of the Complainant. 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.      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 being a reseller it is not responsible for the alleged defects of the mobile phone, it is rather the manufacturer who has the ultimate liability of the product or the service centre of the manufacturing company. The Complainant had almost used the product in issue for over 11 months and seeing the fact that the product warranty is about to expire, made a grievance that the product supplied has some inherent manufacturing defect. Denying all other allegations and stating 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.      It is worthwhile to note that it was the liability of the Manufacturer or its Service Centre to provide the after sale services and were only liable for any fault in the handset purchased by the Complainant. Significantly, Opposite Party No.3 being a registered reseller with website www.flipkart.com has no privity of contract with the Complainant. Also, Opposite Party No.3 is neither the manufacturer nor its Service Centre hence by any stretch of imagination it cannot be held liable for deficiency in service as alleged by the any Complainant. Admittedly, Opposite Party No.3 had provided 30 days replacement warranty to the Complainant, during which period he failed to report his concern regarding the product. In these set of circumstances, we are not inclined to pass any orders against Opposite Party No.3 and the Complaint against deserves to be dismissed.   

 

7.      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 is also writ large. Thus, finding a definite deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, we have no other alternative, but to allow the present complaint against them.

 

8.      In the light of above observations, the present complaint succeeds against the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2. The same is allowed qua them. We direct the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, jointly and severally, as under:- 

 

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

 

[b]  Pay Rs.4,000/- on account of deficiency in service and causing mental and physical harassment to the Complainant; 

 

[c] Pay Rs.4,000/- towards costs of litigation;

 

          The Complaint against Opposite Party No.3 is dismissed.

 

9.      This order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2; thereafter, they shall be liable for an interest @9% 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.     

 

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

Announced

02^nd November,2016                                           

Sd/-

 [SURJEET KAUR]

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

 

 Sd/-                     

[SURESH KUMAR SARDANA]                                                                                                   

“Dutt”                                                                           MEMBER