Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/460/2017

Aniruddh Bhatia, AGED 22Years, S/o Sh. Rajiv Bhatia, R/o House no. 122, - Complainant(s)

Versus

Motorola Mobility Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

14 Nov 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	460/2017
Date of Institution	:	08.06.2017
Date of Decision	:	14/11/2017

 

                                                

                                                         

Aniruddh Bhatia aged 22 years s/o Sh.Rajiv Bhatia r/o H.No.122, Sector 9-B, Chandigarh.

                                      ...  Complainant.

Versus

 

1. Motorola Mobility Ltd. (Head Office), through its Director/Manager/Authorized Signatory, 12^th Floor, Tower D, DLF Cyber City, Gurgaon-122002, DLF Cyber Greens, DLF City Phase-3.
2. Sant Rameshwari Enterprises through its Director/Manager/Authorized Signatory, SCO 26, First Floor, Sector 20-D,Chandigarh-160020.
3. Chroma Electronics Store, through its Director/Manager/ Authorized Signatory, Sector 26,  Chandigarh -160026.

…. Opposite Parties.

BEFORE:    SHRI RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

SHRI RAVINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

Argued by:          

Complainant in person.

                   Defence of OP No.1 struck off.

OP No.2 exparte.

None for OP No.3.

 

PER RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

1.           Succinctly put, the complainant-Sh.Aniruddh Bhatia purchased a mobile phone make Motorola Moto X Force XT 150 for Rs.34,999/- vide invoice dated 02.05.2016 from OP No.3, having warranty of one year.  After two months, it started giving problem and as such he approached OP No.2 on 17.07.2016 who informed that the motherboard was damaged and would cost Rs.30,000/- to replace it as it was not covered under warranty. After many meetings, OP No.2 agreed to fix the mobile phone under warranty.  However, the same was again started giving the problem and as such he approached OP No.2 vide job sheet dated 20.10.2016 who evaluated it as a motherboard mal-function and it bears the different IMEI number different from the one he originally bought.   In March, 2017 the mobile phone again malfunctioned and turned off without warning.  It has further been averred that he again approached OP No.2 on 21.03.2017 and informed that the mobile phone was not in warranty period as per the records maintained with OP No.2 and the bill was to be produced. According to the complainant he produced the bill and OP No.2 asked that the previous repair was not notified in the system as per the IMEI number.   He requested OP No.2 to replace the mobile phone or to refund its price but it refused to do. Rather OP No.2 replied that the mobile phone was yet to be fixed and no replacement/extension in warranty was to be given.  It was alleged that the job sheet (Annexure C-3) bears the different IMEI number.  According to the complainant, the IMEI number was changed with the motherboard twice and the motherboard inserted was more than a year old and faulty. Subsequently, he got served a legal notice upon the OPs 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.           OP No.1 appeared through its authorized representative-Sh.Manwar Singh but it failed to file the written reply and evidence despite repeated adjournments and as such its defence was struck off vide order dated 31.10.2017.
3.           Despite due service through registered post, OP No.2 failed to put in appearance and as a result thereof it was ordered to be proceeded against exparte vide order dated 21.07.2017.
4.           In its written statement, OP No.3 has admitted that the complainant has purchased the mobile phone in question vide invoice dated 01.05.2016.  However, it was stated that the complainant never approached it regarding any defect in the product to avail any assistance.  It has further been stated that it was wrongly impleaded as a party in the complaint. The remaining averments have been denied for want of knowledge.  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 complainant in person and gone through the documentary evidence on record.
6.           In the evidence, the complainant has filed his detailed affidavit reiterating the averments made in the complaint. He also placed on record a copy of the invoice vide which he purchased the mobile phone in question from OP No.3. He has also adduced on record the copies of the job sheets with different IMEIs to show that the motherboard of the mobile phone in question has been changed twice by OP No.2 but the same is still giving the problems which itself sufficient to conclude that there is some inherent manufacturing defect.  The evidence led by the complainant has gone unrebutted and uncontroverted as OP No.1 (manufacturer) did not prefer to file the written reply and evidence despite repeated adjournments. OP No.2 (authorized service center of OP No.1) also preferred to proceed against exparte.  OPs No.1 & 2 did not bother to redress the grievance of the complainant within the warranty period which itself amounts to deficiency in service as also indulgence into unfair trade practice on their part.  
7.           In view of the above discussion, the present complaint deserves to be allowed and the same is accordingly allowed. OPs No1 and 2 are directed as under ;-

1. To replace the mobile phone in question with a new one of the same make and model.
2. To pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant
3. To pay Rs.2,500/- as costs of litigation.

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

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

Announced

14/11/2017

Sd/-

(RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER