Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/326/2016

Vikram Samyal - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Gaurav Bhardwaj Adv.

26 Aug 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	326/2016
Date of Institution	:	10.05.2016
Date of Decision	:	26/08/2016

 

                                               

                                                         

Vikram Samyal s/o Sh.Kuldeep Samyal r/o V&PO Dari, District Kangra (H.P.).

 

                                      ...  Complainant.

Versus

1.       Motorola Mobility India (P) Ltd., (Earlier at 415/2 Mehrauli Gurgaon Road, Gurgaon 122001) now at Building No.7-A, 12^th Floor, Tower –D, DLF Cyber Green, Phase-III, Gurgaon 122002 through its M.D.

2.       Motorola Authorized Service Centre, SCO No.26, First Floor, Sector 20-D, Chandigarh through its Manager.

3.       WS Retail Services Pvt. Ltd., Ozone Manay Tech Park No.56/18, ‘B’ Block, 9^th Floor, Garvebhavipalya, Hosur Road, Bangalore-560068, Karnataka, through its M.D.

…. Opposite Parties.

 

BEFORE:    SHRI RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

Argued by:

Sh.Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.Rohit Kumar, Advocate for OP No.3

                   OPs No.1 and 2 exparte.

 

PER RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

1.           In brief, the case of the complainant is that  he purchased a Mobile make Moto –X Play, manufactured by OP No.1, through flipkart.com for a sum of Rs.15,179/- and the same was delivered to him on 26.01.2016 by OP No.3 vide  Invoice dated 20.01.2016, having warranty of one year.   The mobile phone in question was water repellant.  It has been averred that  on 21.04.2016, it was raining and the mobile phone was kept in the pocket safely but it became dead and, therefore, he took the same to OP No.2 i.e. authorized service center of OP No.1 on 23.04.2016 for repairs. However, it prepared an estimate of Rs.15,000/- towards the repairs and refused to repair the same on the ground that the same was water logged. The complainant informed the service center that it was a water repellant and it was one of its key features and as such they are liable to repair the same. It has further been averred that the mobile phone is lying unrepaired since 23.04.2016 but the OPs are not repairing/replacing the same despite being under warranty. 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, Opposite Party No.1 failed to put in appearance and as a result thereof it was ordered to be proceeded against exparte vide order dated 17.06.2016.
3.           Initially, Sh.Manwar Singh, Authorized Agent on behalf of OP No.2 (Authorized Service Center) put in appearance on 17.06.2016 and the case was adjourned for filing reply and evidence on 13.07.2016.  On the date fixed i.e. 13.07.2016, an adjournment was sought for filing the reply and evidence on behalf of OP No.2 and the same was granted subject to payment of Rs.500/- as costs and the case was adjourned to 26.07.2016. On the date fixed, none appeared on behalf of OP No.2 and hence it was ordered to be proceeded against exparte and the case was fixed for arguments.
4.           OP No.3 filed its written statement stating therein that it is a mere reseller registered with the website “flipkart.com” and does not owe any responsibility towards any manufacturing defects that might crop up after the purchaser starts using it, since it is neither the manufacturer nor the service center. It has further been pleaded that OP No.1 provides 30 days replacement warranty to its customer i.e. if there is any issue in the product within 30 days of the purchase which cannot be rectified, then the product would be replaced or at times the amount is refunded.  However, in the instant case, the complainant used the product for three months and did not approach it which leads to irrefutable conclusion that the product in question was working fine not only at the time of the purchase but even thereafter till 21.04.2016 when admittedly, the complainant approached the service center i.e. OP No.2.  The remaining allegations were denied, being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on its part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
5.           We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant, OP No.3 and have gone through the documents on record.
6.           Annexure C-1 is the copy of the invoice vide which the complainant has purchased the mobile phone in question.  It is evident form Annexure C-2 that the mobile phone in question was delivered to the complainant on 26.01.2016. It is also established from Annexure C-3 that the mobile set in question was  water repellant.  Annexure C-4 is the copy of the job sheet dated 23.04.2014 whereby the complainant handed over the mobile phone to OP No.2 for its repairs.
7.           The complainant has specifically deposed in his affidavit that the mobile set in question was water repellant and, therefore, it was the liability of the OPs No.1 and 2 to repair/replace the same within the warranty period but they refused to do and as such the same amounts to deficiency in service on their part.
8.           It is pertinent to mention here that OPs No.1 and 2 who are the manufacturer and the authorized service center of mobile phone in question respectively and are best persons to refute the averments made in the complaint have preferred not to contest the case of the complainants meaning thereby that either they admit the case of the complainant in toto or they have nothing to say in their defence.   Thus, the evidence led by the complainants, qua them has gone unrebutted and uncontroverted. The refusal to repair the mobile handset in question within the warranty period itself sufficient to conclude that the same cannot be put right by effecting the repairs. Hence, the deficiency in service on the part of OPs No.1 and 2 is writ large.
9.           In view of the above discussion, the present complaint deserves to be allowed qua OPs No.1 and 2 and the same is accordingly allowed. They are  directed as under ;-

1. To pay Rs.15,179/-  i.e. the price of the mobile handset in question to the complainant.
2. To pay a sum of Rs.2,500/- to the complainant as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment.
3. To pay a sum of Rs.2,500/-  as litigation expenses.

This order be complied with by OP No.1 and 2, within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amount at Sr.No.(i) and (ii) shall carry interest @9% per annum from the date of this order till actual payment besides payment of litigation costs.

10.           The complaint qua OP No.3 stands dismissed.
11.           Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

26/08/2016

Sd/-

(RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER