DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM
Dated this the 19th day of October 2022
Filed on: 27/02/2019
PRESENT
Shri.D.B.Binu President
Shri.V.Ramachandran Member
Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N Member
C.C. No. 101/2019
Between
COMPLAINANT
Jayaprasad. M.R., S/o. Late. Raghuvaran, House Number 69/1783, Maathalil, P.H. E. Road, Kochi-682018.
(Rep. Adv. Ancil V.H., ‘Mathalil’, P.H. Extn. Road, Kochi – 682018)
VS
OPPOSITE PARTIES
1. Motorola Mobility India Pvt Ltd, Building No. &A, 12th Floor, Tower- d, dif Cyber Green, Phase-III, Gurgaon-122 002 (Haryana).
2. Dreams Mobiles, Lenovo Motorola Authorized Mobile Service Center Mobile phone repair shop 1st floor, Beejay Towers, Rajaji Rd, Shenoys, Ernakulam 682035
FINAL O R D E R
DB.Binu, President
1) A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below :
The Complaint was filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986. The complainant is a lawyer and a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act. The first opposite party is the importer, the Manufacturer of mobile phones. The opposite party No. 2 is the authorized service centre. The Complainant saw the advertisements for Moto G4 plus 32 GB Black 351891083069093, Mobile phone and was impressed by it purchased a mobile phone from the dealer for his personal use as per invoice number 8B/ ALP/2389 along with accessories adaptor and headset. On 07-02-2019 the phone stopped working, incoming calls could not be attended to, and could not make calls to outside phones, there is a display of only the emblem of the Motorola "M" on the touch screen thereafter remain as lighted. On 09-02-2019 complainant visited the LENOVO & MOTO authorized service centre of the second opposite party. On inquiry at the front office, on seeing the phone was taken for service and since the technicians are said to be not available the photocopy of the receipt was given and told that in the evening the complaint will be intimated. The Phone is remaining with the 2nd opposite party. It is submitted that the complainant was using the telephone very carefully and had taken it out from the pouch/cover for the first time before giving it to the service centre. There is no reason for the mobile phone to stop working. The same is a production mistake and the service centre on seeing the phone itself said the battery is not having any problem and the software must be the complaint. The receipt given was not having any phone numbers and the complainant again visited the service centre on 11-02-2019. Then also it was intimate that the complaint is not diagnosed and will be intimated before evening. The phone is not returned or complaint intimated. While purchasing the mobile the complainant purchased the Pouch and the glass cover from the authorized shop itself and the mobile phone was in the pouch/cover purchased by the complainant. There is a clear deficiency of service. The complainant is put difficulties and could not use the phone and thereafter the sim card was changed and put in another phone and is used. The complaint about the mobile phone without any fault on the part of the complainant caused mental agony, and shock to the complainant. Aggrieved by the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties this Complaint is filed to redress the grievances. i). return the invoice amount of Rs. 15,000/- or replace the equipment with a new mobile without any additional payment ii) to allow compensation to the complainant for the loss, and mental agony.
2) Notice
Notice was issued from the Commission to the second Opposite Party and they did not appear before the commission despite receiving the notice and did not file their version. Hence the second opposite parties set ex-parte.
Notice to the first Opposite Party was returned as left by the postal authority and directed to furnish the correct address of the first Opposite Party. The known address shown directed to furnish the correct address. The complainant submitted the available address of the first opposite party furnished to the Commission. The complainant requested the Commission to order that the notice to the first opposite party be sent through email. On 24.03.2022, the Commission was directed to issue a notice through email to the first opposite party. The Notice was issued from the Commission to the first Opposite Party by email and they did not appear before the commission and did not file their version. Hence the first opposite parties set ex-parte.
3. Evidence
The complainant had filed a proof affidavit and 5 documents that were marked as Exbt.A-1- to A-5
Exbt.A-1- Copy of the Invoice for the purchase of the Mobile Phone dated
22-04-2017.
Exbt.A-2- Copy of the Service entrustment receipt dated 09-02-2019.
Exbt.A-3- Receipt Number 413 dated 04-09-2019 for the repairing charges of G4 plus, Motorola mobile phone.
Exbt.A-4- Original of the Tax invoice No. 8B/ ALP/ 28674 for the purchase of a New Mobile phone.
Exbt.A-5- Original of the Visiting card given to the complainant by the 2nd Opposite party.
4) The main points to be analysed in this case are as follows:
I) Whether the complaint is maintainable or not?
II) Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite party to the complainant?
III) If so, whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief from the side of the opposite party?
IV) Costs of the proceedings if any?
The issues mentioned above are considered together and are answered as follows:
The complaint is maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. (Point No. I). In the above case, the Complainant has produced EXHIBIT A1 to A5. All in support of their case. The above complaint was filed against the opposite parties for the manufacturing defect of the Mobile phone and the deficiency of service by the 2nd opposite party in repairing the Mobile phone. The second opposite party was set ex parte by the Commission on 04 01-2020. The notice to the first opposite party was returned and directed to furnish the correct address. The Notice was issued from the Commission to the first Opposite Party by email and they did not appear before the Commission and did not file their version. Hence the first opposite party also set ex-parte.
The Complainant is an advocate and the clients are to be contacted constantly the complaint about the mobile phone had adversely affected his profession and the loss sustained is huge and the same is not calculated in terms of money. Invoice No. 8B/ ALP/ 2389 dated 22-04-2017 (Exhibit – A1). On 17- 02- 2019 the phone stopped working, incoming calls could not be attended and could not make calls to outside phones, there is a display of only the emblem of Motorola "M" on the touch screen thereafter remain lighted. On 09-02-2019 the complainant visited the 2nd opposite party and the telephone was taken for service noting the problem description as "dead" on the Performa provided. The photocopy of the form was filled out at the service centre by the complainant and the front-end team along with the visiting card provided to him for contacting them (Exhibit- 2).There was no response from the opposite party No. 2 for more than 6 months. Immediately went and took delivery of the telephone on 04-09-2019 on payment of Rs.1,200/- made under protest. The original receipt dated 04-09-2019 for Rs.1,200/- was issued by the Opposite Party in respect of Mobile Phone G4 plus (Exhibit A3). The repaired phone is working in very bad performance and could not be used regularly. The complainant had purchased a new Mobile phone for his use (Exhibit - A5).
The complainant’s claim against the opposite parties remains unchallenged and the complainant is successful in proving a transaction between the complainant and both Opposite Parties and the complainant had suffered mental agony and harassment at the hands of the opposite parties.
We have also noticed that Notices were issued from the Commission to the opposite parties and the opposite parties received the notices but did not file their version. Hence the opposite parties set ex-parte. But the opposite parties did not make any attempt to appear in the case and participate in the above proceedings before this Commission and did not make any attempt to set aside the ex parte order passed against it.
The opposite parties’ counsels fail to file their written versions in spite of their having received the Commission’s notice to that effect amounts to an admission of the allegations levelled against them. The Hon’ble NC held a similar stance in its order cited 2017(4) CPR page 590 (NC).
We find the issue Nos. (II), (III) and (IV) are found in favour of the complainant for the serious deficiency in service that happened on the side of the opposite parties. Naturally, the complainant had suffered a lot of inconvenience, mental agony, hardships, financial loss, etc. due to the negligence on the part of the opposite parties.
In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the opposite parties are liable to compensate the complainant.
Hence the prayer is partly allowed as follows:
i. The Opposite Parties shall refund the complainant the invoice amount of the mobile phone of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only)
ii. The Opposite Parties shall pay the complainant Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) as compensation for loss caused to the complainant due to the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice of the first opposite party.
iii. The Opposite Parties shall also pay the complainant Rs.5,000/- towards the cost of the proceedings.
The above-mentioned directions shall be complied with by the Opposite Parties within 30 days from the date of the receipt of a copy of this order. Failing which the amount ordered vide (i) and (ii) above shall attract interest @7.5% from the date of receipt of a copy of this order till the date of realization.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant K.P. Liji transcribed and typed by her corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission this 19th day of October 2022.
Sd/-
D.B.Binu, President
Sd/- V.Ramachandran, Member
Sd/-
Sreevidhia.T.N, Member
Forwarded/by Order
Assistant Registrar
APPENDIX
COMPLAINANT’S EVIDENCE
Exbt.A-1- Copy of the Invoice for the purchase of the Mobile Phone dated
22-04-2017.
Exbt.A-2- Copy of the Service entrustment receipt dated 09-02-2019.
Exbt.A-3- Receipt Number 413 dated 04-09-2019 for the repairing charges of G4 plus, Motorola mobile phone.
Exbt.A-4- Original of the Tax invoice No. 8B/ ALP/ 28674 for the purchase of a New Mobile phone.
Exbt.A-5- Original of the Visiting card given to the complainant by the 2nd Opposite party
OPPOSITE PARTIES’ EVIDENCE
Nil
Despatch date:
By hand: By post
kp/
CC No. 101/2019
Order Date: 19/10/2022
