Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/579/2016

Vikram Arora - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

In person

21 Sep 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/579/2016
Date of Institution	:	26/07/2016
Date of Decision	:	21/09/2017

 

Vikram Arora s/o Sh. S.L. Arora, resident of H.No.424, Sector 20-A, Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

1.     Motorola Mobility India Private Ltd., 415/2, Mehrauli – Gurgaon Road, Sector 14, Gurgaon – 122001, Haryana, India through its Proprietor/Manager.

2.     Sant Rameshwari Enterprises, SCO – 26, Ist Floor, Sector 20-D, Chandigarh - 20, through its proprietor/ authorised signatory.

3.     WS Retail Services Pvt. Ltd., No.42/1 & 43, Kacherakanhalli Village, Jadigenahalli Hobli, Hoskote Taluk, Bangalore, Karnataka, India – 560067 through its authorised signatory/owner)

……Opposite Parties

 

CORAM :	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	PRESIDING MEMBER
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                                               

       

ARGUED BY	:	Complainant in person
	:	OPs 1 & 2 ex-parte
	:	None for OP-3

Per Surjeet Kaur, Presiding Member

1.         The facts of the consumer complaint, in brief, are that on 31.8.2015, the complainant purchased a new MotoG 3^rd Generation mobile phone through Flipkart.com sold by OP-2. After two months, the phone started giving trouble. The matter was referred to the customer care centre at Sector 20, Chandigarh who updated the software on two occasions. However, the problem persisted and on third occasion it took the mobile set saying that the motherboard would be changed and returned the same after 25 days.  However, the problem resurfaced within one week.  The set was again submitted to the service centre who returned the same saying that it has been repaired, however, the hanging problem and abnormally low voice of the caller continued. Alleging that the mobile in question suffers from manufacturing defect, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
2.         OP-1 did not appear despite due service, therefore, it was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 30.11.2016.
3.         Initially Sh. Manwar Singh, Customer Care Executive appeared on behalf of OP-2 and the case was adjourned for filing reply and evidence. But, subsequently neither the reply and evidence were filed, nor anybody appeared on behalf of OP-2, therefore, vide order dated 30.3.2017, it was proceeded ex-parte.
4.         OP-3 in its written reply has admitted the facts with regard to purchase of the mobile set in question. It has been averred that the grievance of the complainant relates to the defects in the product and ‘after sale service’ issue post the product’s satisfactory use by the complainant for nearly about six months. It has been settled proposition of law that the liability for defect in the product or after sales service issue rests with the manufacturer only. It has been contended that the entire complaint does not have any specific grievance against
   OP-3. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, OP-3 prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5.         The complainant filed rejoinder to the written reply of OP-3.
6.         The contesting parties led evidence in support of their contentions. 
7.         We have gone through the record and heard the arguments addressed by the complainant.
8.         It is evident from page 4 of the paperbook that the complainant purchased one Moto G (3^rd Generation) mobile handset on 31.7.2015 from OP-3 by booking it online through Flipkart.com. The sole grouse of the complainant is that the handset in question became defective many times, that too within the warranty period, but, the same could not rectified by the OPs and the handset in question is still giving problems of the same kind. It has also been alleged that the service engineer of OPs 1 & 2 informed the complainant on seeing the handset that the motherboard needs replacement.  But, despite the services provided by OPs 1 & 2, the error/defect is still persisting and the handset is working abnormally. In support of his contentions made in the complaint, the complainant has tendered his duly sworn affidavit.
9.         Pertinently, OPs 1 & 2 chose not to appear before this Forum and were proceeded ex-parte. Therefore, the evidence produced by the complainant has gone unrebutted qua them.
10.         The stand taken by OP-3 is that the complainant purchased the handset from it, but, the liability for the defect in the product or after sale services is of the manufacturer only.  Hence, there is no deficiency in service on its part.
11.         A perusal of the job sheet (at page 6 of the paperbook) and various emails reveal that the OPs apologized for the inconvenience caused to the complainant and as per the email dated 20.4.2016 (at page 11 of the paperbook), the OPs informed the complainant that “if the device is repairable then the service centre will solve the issue by replacing the parts and the replacement of the device is only possible within 30 days from the date of purchase by flipkart.” It would not be out of place to mention here that the complainant spent a hefty amount in the purchase of the handset to make himself comfortable and not to move time and again to the service centre for the removal of defects and then to this Forum for the redressal of his grievances.  Hence, the act of the OPs in non-providing proper services, that too within the warranty period, proves deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part.
12.         In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint deserves to succeed and the same is accordingly partly allowed. The OPs are directed as under:-

1. To refund the invoice value of the handset in question i.e. Rs.12,999/- to the complainant.   The complainant shall return the handset in question to the OPs.
2. To pay Rs.5,000/- to the complainant as compensation for mental agony and harassment caused to him;
3. To pay to the complainant Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation.

13.         This order be complied with by the OPs within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of directions at Sr.No.(iii) above.
14.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-
21/09/2017	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]
hg	Member	Presiding Member