DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

Pankaj Manocha c/o ICICI Bank, SCO 36, 2^nd Floor, Manimajra, Chandigarh.

                                      ---Complainant.

Versus

1.                 Motorola Mobility India Pvt. Ltd., 415/2 Mehrauli-Gurgaon Road, Gurgaon-122001 through its Managing Director.

2.                 Vignesh Services, SCO No.189-190, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh through its Manager.

3.                 Infosecure Consulting Pvt. Ltd., B-26, Sector-8, Noida-201301 (Uttar Pradesh) through its Director.

---Opposite Parties.

BEFORE:  SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA                 PRESIDENT

                   SMT. MADHU MUTNEJA                       MEMBER

Argued by:  Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Counsel for the complainant

                        OPs exparte.

PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT

1.                           Sh. Pankaj Manocha has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act only) praying for the following reliefs :-

i)                   either to repair the tablet or refund its price i.e. Rs.20,490/-

ii)                to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation;

iii)              to pay Rs.5,500/- as litigation expenses.

2.                           In brief, the case of the complainant is that he purchased a Motorola Tablet Xoom (wi-fi+3G) by making online purchase from timatra.com.  The said tablet was manufactured by opposite party No.1 and it carried warranty of one year. 

According to the complainant, he used the tablet for nearly nine months with 2G sim card but suddenly its internet stopped working.  He contacted the customer care and they told him that the tablet works only with 3G sim card.  Accordingly, the complainant bought a new 3G sim card but still the tablet did not work and as such it was taken to the service centre on 4.1.2013.  According to the complainant, the tablet is lying un-repaired as the service centre refused to honour the warranty on the ground that IMEI number was not mentioned on the retail invoice.  The complainant also sent a number of emails to opposite party No.1 but to no avail.  

In these circumstances the present complaint has been filed seeking the reliefs mentioned above.

3.                           Notices were sent for the service of opposite parties No.1 & 3 through registered AD letter on 1.2.2013.  However, neither the same were received back undelivered nor any acknowledgement was received.  As the period of more than 30 days had passed, therefore, it was presumed that opposite parties No.1 & 3 had been duly served.  None appeared on behalf of opposite parties No.1 & 3 on the date fixed. Hence they were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 11.3.2013.

4.                           Opposite party No.2 was duly served.  However, none appeared on its behalf.  Hence, it was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 11.3.2013.

5.                           We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the documents on record.

6.                           It has been contended by the ld. Counsel that the complainant purchased a Motorola Tablet Xoom (wi-fi+3G) by making online purchase from timtara.com.  Annexure C-1 is the copy of the invoice dated 25.1.2012 of Rs.20,490/- which proves the purchase of the Motorola Tablet.  According to the ld. Counsel, the said tablet was manufactured by opposite party No.1 and was having warranty of one year.  It has been contended that the complainant used the tablet for nearly nine months with 2G sim card but suddenly its internet stopped working.  When the complainant contacted the customer care, he was told that the tablet worked only with 3G sim card. The complainant bought a 3G sim card but still the tablet did not work.  It has been contended that the complainant finally gave the tablet at the service centre of the opposite parties on 4.1.2013 but it failed to honour the warranty on the ground that the IMEI number was not mentioned on the retail invoice and the tablet is still lying un-repaired.  Annexure C-5 (Colly.) is the copy of the emails sent by the complainant to the opposite parties.  The complainant also filed his duly sworn affidavit in support of his averments in the complaint. 

7.                           The opposite parties did not appear to controvert the averments of the complainant. Therefore, the stand of the complainant goes un-rebutted.  The tablet was well within the warranty period when the complaint was lodged with the opposite parties and the opposite parties were duty bound to repair the same.  Failure of the opposite parties to repair or replace the defective tablet certainly amounts to deficiency in service on their part.

8.                           In view of the above discussion, the present complaint is allowed and the opposite parties are directed as under :-

i)                   to immediately repair the tablet in question, free of cost, to the satisfaction of the complainant.

ii)                to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant.

iii)              to pay Rs.5,000/- as litigation costs.

9.                           This order be complied with by the opposite parties, within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy.  In case the opposite parties fail to repair the tablet in question, to the satisfaction of the complainant, within the aforesaid period, then they shall refund its invoice price i.e. Rs.20,490/- and  the amount of compensation i.e. Rs.10,000/-, mentioned at Sr.No.(ii) above, alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till payment, besides payment of litigation costs.

10.                       Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

28.3.2013.

Sd/-

(LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

 (MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER