BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.

            Dated this the 5^th day of May 2018

                                                                                                Filed on :     01.08.2017           

PRESENT:

Shri. Cherian K. Kuriakose,                                                       President.

Shri. Sheen Jose,                                                            Member.

Smt. Beena Kumari V.K.                                                  Member.

                        C.C.No. 309/2017

                                 Between                                      

                                                         O R D E R

Sheen Jose, Member

1.  The case of the complainant is as follows:

The complainant had purchased a Moto G4 plus mobile handset through Amazone India on 16.09.2016 at a price of Rs.14,999/- which was manufactured by the 1^st opposite party- Motorola Mobility India Pvt. Ltd. The handset showed malfunctioning on the very next month ie, from October 2016 onwards and the matter was immediately reported to the 2^nd opposite party. The complainant handed over the disputed mobile phone to the 2^nd opposite party authorized service centre for curing the defects.  After verification of the handset they informed the complainant that the touch screen of the gadget was defective. The 2^nd opposite party delivered the phone after repair and ensured the complainant that all defects were cured.  But, again and again the phone showed some various defects. The complainant alleged in his complaint that he had approached the Amazone India for curing the defects of the mobile handset.  As per the instructions received from the Amazone India, the complainant again approached the 2^nd opposite party to generate DOA certificate to the complainant.  But the 2^nd opposite party neither to rectified the defects of the mobile handset nor taken any steps to replace the same.  They refused to issue DOA certificate to the complainant. After 45 days the 2^nd opposite party returned the mobile handset and informed the complainant that all the defects of the phone were cured. But, the phone became defunct within days after taking delivery. The complainant again and again approached the 2^nd opposite party and the 2^nd opposite party could not provide quality service to the complainant so far.  At present the phone is under the custody of the 2^nd opposite party. The 2^nd opposite party did not do anything to redress the grievances of the complainant.  Thus, the complainant is before us seeking direction against the opposite parties to refund the price of the disputed mobile handset to the complainant. He also sought for an amount of Rs. 1 lakh towards compensation for the mental agony and inconvenience suffered and costs of the proceedings from the opposite parties. Hence this complaint.

2)      Despite the service of notices from this Forum the opposite parties opted not to contest the matter for their own reasons. Evidence in this case consisted of ex-parte proof affidavit filed by the complainant and Exbt. A1 to A3 were marked on his side. Heard the complainant who appeared in person.

3)      Issues came up for considerations are as follows:

1. Whether the complainant has proved any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the opposite parties
2. Whether the opposite parties are liable to refund the price of the disputed mobile handset to the complainant?
3. Whether the opposite parties are liable to pay compensation to the complainant?
4. Whether the complainant is entitled to get costs of the proceedings from the opposite parties.  

5)      Issue No. (i)

          The complainant had purchased a Moto G4 plus mobile phone through Amazone India online shopping site on 16.09.2016 at  a price of Rs. 14,999/-.  The above said phone was manufactured and marketed by the 1^st opposite party-Motorola Mobility India. The 2^nd opposite party is the authorized service centre of the 1^st opposite party. The complainant alleged in his complaint that the disputed mobile handset showed some defects right from the beginning of its purchase. He entrusted the mobile handset to the 2^nd opposite party, the authorized service centre many times to cure the defects. Almost all time, the 2^nd opposite party serviced the disputed mobile handset and returned the phone to the complainant telling that the defects were rectified, but defects remained as before. Therefore the complainant again approached the 2^nd opposite party service centre and from there he contacted the Amazone shopping site for raising the problems regarding the disputed mobile. After some communications between the 2^nd opposite party and Amazone shopping site, the 2^nd opposite party assured the complainant that they had issued a DOA certificate to him, but they denied the promises assured. The 2^nd opposite party service centre miserably failed either to rectify the defects of the mobile handset or to replace it with a new one even the mobile is under the warranty period. Exbt. A1 tax invoice issued by Amazone online shopping site clearly shows that the complainant had purchased the mobile handset on 16.09.2016 at a price of Rs.14,999/-.  Exbt. A2 email communications between the complainant and Amazone shopping site shows that the complainant had intimated the defects of the mobile handset to the Amazone shopping site.  Exbt.A3 terms and conditions of the warranty issued by the 1^st opposite party shows that the manufacturer has provided one year warranty to the disputed mobile handset. In this case, the 2^nd opposite party failed to provide the quality service to the disputed mobile of the complainant. Moreover, the mobile handset is still under their custody. We clearly understand that the complainant had suffered a lot of inconvenience, mental agony…etc. due to the negligent attitude of the opposite parties.  On going through the Exbt. A2 email communication between Amazone and the 2^nd opposite party, we could understand that the complainant escalated his grievances to the Amazone online site before the 2^nd opposite party. But the opposite parties did not take any steps to redress the grievances of the complainant.  The case of the complainant stands unchallenged by the opposite parties even after receipt of the notice from this Forum. Therefore, we have no reason to disbelieve the sworn proof affidavit filed by the complainant. The 1^st opposite party manufacturer had also provided one year warranty to the disputed handset. But they did not do anything to redress the grievances of the complainant since the product is under warranty period.  In the absence of any contrary evidence, we are of the opinion that the case of the complainant is believable and he is entitled to get either to replace the disputed mobile handset with a new one or to get refund of its price. In this case, we are of the opinion that the complainant had suffered a lot of inconvenience due to the negligent attitude and deficient service offered by the opposite parties. Hence the complainant is entitled to get refund the price of the disputed mobile handset from the opposite parties. We find that the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties jointly and severally liable to refund an amount of Rs.14,999/- to the complainant which is being the price of the disputed mobile handset as per the Exbt.A1 invoice.

5)      Issue No. (ii)

The evidence on reports go to show that the complainant had been running from pillar to post to get this grievances redressed. The same fell on deaf ears by the reasons not stated or explained. The complainant had spent his valuable time and money to contest his case before this Forum, which calls for compensation and costs of the proceedings. We think that compensation of Rs. 5000/- and costs of the proceedings of Rs.2,000/- are enough to abate the agony of the complainant.

In the result we partly allow the complaint and direct as follows:

1.  The 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties shall directed to refund an amount of Rs.14,999/- to the complainant which is being the price of the disputed mobile handset as per Exbt.A1.
2. The 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties shall also pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards compensation and Rs.2,000/- towards cost of the proceedings to the complainant.
3. The liability of the opposite parties shall be joint and several.
4.  

The above order shall be complied with, within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the compensation amount shall carry 12% interest p.a. from the 31^st day of receipt of a copy of this order till the date of payment. 

     Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 5^th day of May 2018.

Sd/-Sheen Jose, Member

                                                          Sd/-Cherian K. Kuriakose, President

                                                          Sd/-Beenakumari V.K., Member

Forwarded by Order

                                                               Senior Superintendent

APPENDIX

Complainants Exhibits

Opposite party's Exhibits:          Nil

Date of Despatch        :

                             By Hand    :

                             By Post      :