Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/34/2018

Subhash Chand - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

In Person

31 Jul 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

Consumer Complaint No.	:	34/2018
Date of Institution	:	19.01.2018
Date of Decision	:	31.07.2018

 

 

                                                           

                                                                       

Subhash Chand age 47 years s/o Sh.Krishan Dev r/o H.No.4240, First Floor, Sector 68, Mohali.

                                                ...  Complainant.

Versus

 

1.         Motorola Mobility India Pvt. Ltd., Building no.7-A, 12^th Floor, Tower-D, DLF Cyber Green, Phase-III, Gurgaon 122002 through its Managing Director.

 

2.        M/s Sant Ramehwari Enterprises,  SCO No.26, 1^st Floor, Sector 20-D,Chandigarh through its Manager.

 

3.        Anmol Watches & Electronics Pvt. Ltd., SCO No.1012-1013, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh through its Managing Director.

…. Opposite Parties.

 

BEFORE:   SHRI RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

SH.RAVINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

Argued by:

Complainant in person.

                        OPs exparte.

 

PER RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

1.             Briefly stated, he purchased a mobile phone make Moto-M 64GB Gold from OP No.3 vide Invoice dated 23.10.2017 for Rs.14,890/-, having warranty of one year.  The touch screen of the mobile phone stopped working and as such he approached OP No.2 on the advice of OP No.3.  According to the complainant, the mechanic of OP No.2 took the mobile phone and after one and half hour he came with an explanation that the mobile phone got repaired un-authorizedly from some outside agency and, therefore, the same was not covered under warranty and demanded Rs.10,000/- towards its repairs.  It has further been averred that when the mobile phone is within warranty then why did he get the same repaired from outside.   It has further been averred that the mobile phone was lying unrepaired and unused since 29.12.2017 whereas the warranty was to expire on 22.10.2018.  He contacted the OPs number of times but to no effect. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
2.             Despite due service through registered post, the OPs failed to put in appearance and as a result thereof they were ordered to be proceeded against exparte vide order dated 17.04.2018.
3.             We have heard the complainant in person and have gone through the documents on record.
4.             In exparte evidence, the complainant has filed his duly sworn affidavit reiterating the averments as made in the complaint.   Annexure C-1 is the invoice dated 23.10.2017 regarding the purchase of the product in question. Annexures C-2 is the job sheet issued by OP No.2.  The evidence led by the complainant has also gone un-rebutted and uncontroverted in the absence of any rebuttal from the side of the OPs.  It can, thus, be concluded without any hesitation that either they admit the claim of the complainant or have nothing to say in the matter.    It was the responsibility of the OPs to render the post sale services to the complainant within the warranty period but they have failed to set right the defect in the mobile phone despite the fact that the same started giving the problem within the warranty period.  Moreover, there was no need for the complainant to get the mobile phone repaired from the outside agency especially when the same was covered under warranty. It is a common practice, as of now days, of the Mobile Companies to deny service, within warranty period, to a common man/consumer by mentioning that the mobile phone got repaired from outside agency so that it could be ousted from warranty terms and they would earn by carrying out repairs on payment basis even within the warranty period. In our considered view, they have committed deficiency in service by not rendering the promised services within the warranty period. 
5.             In view of the above discussion, the present complaint deserves to be allowed and the same is accordingly allowed. The OPs  are directed as under;-

1. To make the mobile phone in question functional by replacing all the defective parts, if any, free of costs.
2. To pay Rs.3,500/- to the complainant as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment.
3. To pay Rs.5,500/- as litigation expenses.

6.             This order be complied with by the OPs within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amount at Sr.No.(ii) shall carry interest @9% per annum from the date of this order till actual payment besides compliance of other directions.
7.             Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

31.07.2018 

Sd/-

(RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER