Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/295/2017

Mihir Sanadi - Complainant(s)

Versus

Motorola Solutions India Private Limited - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

29 Jan 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint  No	:	295 of 2017
Date  of  Institution	:	30.03.2017
Date   of   Decision	:	29.01.2018

 

 

 

 

Mihir Sanadi s/o Ranjai Sanadi, R/o H.No.2177,  Phase-7, Mohali (Punjab)

 

               …………..Complainant

 

VERSUS

 

1]   Motorola Solutions India Private Limited, Motorola Excellence Centre, 415/2 Mehrauli-Gurgaon Road, Sector 14, Gurgaon 122001, Haryana India

2]   Amazon India, Brigade Gateway, 8^th Floor, 26/1, Dr.Raj Kumar Road, Malleshwaram (W), Bangalore 560055 India

 

3]   M/s Amiable Electronics Private Ltd., Proconnect Supply Chain Solutions Ltd., Survey No.18 & 22/4, Nagarur Village, Dasanpura Hobli, Bangalore 562123, Karnataka, India.

 

4]   M/s Sant Rameshwari Enterprises, SCO 26, 1^st Floor, Sector 20-D, Chandigarh 160020

 

5]   Motorola Mobility India Private Limited, 12^th Floor, Tower-D, DLF Cyber Greens, DLF Cyber City, Gurgaon, Haryana. 

 

…………… Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:   SH.RAJAN DEWAN          PRESIDENT

                                MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA           MEMBER

SH.RAVINDER SINGH            MEMBER

                            

Argued by: Complainant in person.

None for OPs NO.1 & 4.

Sh.Sumit Narang, Adv. proxy for Sh.Inderjit Singh, Adv. for OP No.2.

OPs NO.3 & 5 exparte.  

 

 

RAVINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

 

        The facts in issue are that the complainant believing the advertisement of OP No.2 about the best quality of mobile, ordered One mobile handset of Motorola G4 Plus (32 GB) manufactured by OP No.1, which was carrying one year warranty.  Thereafter, the said mobile handset was delivered to the complainant by OPs No.2 & 3 on 25.8.2016 on making payment of Rs.14,999/- (Ann.A).   It is averred that the said mobile handset started giving problem just after 3 months of its purchase and on 16.1.2017, it was given to Opposite Party NO.4 for rectification (Ann.B). However, the mobile phone was returned on 18.1.2017 after changing its display, the OS (Operating System) was reloaded and the calibration was also done.  It is averred that after taking the delivery of the phone, the same problem resurfaced in the phone on 23.1.2017, therefore, the mobile handset was again deposited with Opposite Party NO.4 for repairs.  It is stated that Opposite Party NO.4 informed the complainant that the updates including OS released by Opposite Party NO.1 are not to be updated by the phone user themselves but are to be got updated/upgraded from OP No.4. It is also stated that the complainant also enquired from Opposite Party NO.4 whether the updates released by Opposite Party NO.1 are substandard and the updates available with the service centre only are okay.  It is further stated that the complainant brought this matter to the notice of Opposite Party No.1 vide email dated 25.1.2017 and also informed it that the defect in the phone is a manufacturing one as the problem surfaced on their own and asked them to refund the cost of the handset.  However, till date the said mobile phone of the complainant is neither replaced nor money has been refunded.  Hence, this complaint has been filed alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs.

 

2]       The Opposite Party NO.2 has filed reply stating that the complainant has not bought any goods directly from ASSPL (Amazon Seller Service Private Limited) nor has the complainant paid any amount/consideration to ASSPL for the purchased product and that the goods have been bought by the complainant from the independent third party seller selling its product on the website operated by answering Opposite Party. The booking of the mobile phone in question by the complainant on the website of Opposite Party NO.2 is admitted as a matter of record. It is stated that the instant complaint pertains to manufacturing defects and the same can only be redressed either by the manufacturer or the seller and no liability can be fastened on the answering Opposite Party whose role is limited as facilitator.  Pleading no deficiency in service and denying rest of the allegations, Opposite Party No.2 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint qua it. 

         The Opposite Party No.1 & 4 after initially putting in appearance through counsel Sh.Ayush Sharma, Advocate  and Sh.Manwar Singh, Authorised Agent, respectively, did not turn up thereafter nor filed any reply or evidence, hence the defence of Opposite Party NO.1 & 4 was struck off vide order dated 27.12.2017. 

         Opposite Parties No.2 & 5 did not turn up despite service of notice sent through regd. post, hence they were proceeded exparte vide order dated  8.5.2017 and 9.10.2017 respectively.

 

3]       Complainant and OP No.2 led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

4]       We have heard the complainant in person, ld.Counsel for OP No.2 and have carefully examined the facts and pleadings along with entire evidence on record.

 

5]       The complainant purchased Mobile Moto G Plus, 4^th Gen (Black, 32 GB) vide Invoice dated 25.8.2016 from Amiable Electronics Private Limited/Opposite Party No.3 for an amount of Rs.14,999/- (Ann.A).  The said mobile handset allegedly had some problem in it working and the matter was brought to the notice of Service Centre i.e. B2X-003 Sant Rameshwari Enterprises/OP No.4.  The mobile handset was handed over to the Service Centre/OP No.4 on 16.1.2017 for repair of Display vide Job Sheet - Moto Service Record (Ann.B) on 16.1.2017.

 

6]       The said mobile handset was delivered to the complainant by the Service Centre after repair of the same.  However, on 23.1.2017 the same problem in the mobile handset again took place and the complainant again approached Opposite Party NO.4/Service Centre for repair and allegedly handed over the mobile handset for doing the needful. 

 

7]       The complainant has stated in Para No.6 of the complainant that he handed over the mobile handset to the Service Centre, but the complainant was not provided any receipt for the same by Opposite Party No.4.  The veracity of the statement of the complainant is suspicious.  It is beyond imagination how a person can handover his costly mobile handset for repair to the Service Centre without any receipt for the same or any Job Sheet, especially when the complainant was well aware of the Job Sheet earlier issued by the same Service Centre when he handed over the mobile handset on 16.1.2017 for repair.  The complainant seems to have suppressed material facts and has not come to the Forum with clean hands.

 

8]       The mobile telephone was within warranty and the OPs are legally bound to repair the same free of cost. In the present complaint, the complainant has not produced any evidence on record to show that the OPs had failed to repair the mobile handset in question within warranty period. The facts & circumstances in the present case, do not lead to proof of any deficiency on the part of the OPs herein. 

 

9]       Keeping into consideration, the facts in issue, the claim of the complainant for refund of cost of the mobile handset along with damages and litigation expenses, is without merit being not substantiated with any cogent and reliable evidence on record. Therefore, the complaint being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.

         The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

29^th January, 2017                          Sd/-

(RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

 (PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER