BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.
Dated this the 4th day of March 2017
Filed on : 10-06-2016
PRESENT:
Shri. Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.
Shri. Sheen Jose, Member.
Smt. Beena Kumari V.K. Member.
CC.No.326/2016
Between
Anaswar G, : Complainant
S/o. Girijasankar E, (By Adv. A.T. Anil Kumar, 2nd floor,
11/164A (13/426), Vattoly Annex, SRM Road,
Chinmayam Edayile Veedu, Ernakulam-682 018)
Nettore, Maradu Panchayath,
Cochin-682 040.
And
1. M/s. Motorola India Pvt. Ltd. : Opposite parties
rep.by its Managing Director,
Motorola Excellence Centre,
415/2, Mehrauli-Gurgaon Road,
Sector 14, Near Maharana
Pratap Chowk, Gurgaon,
Haryana-122 001.
2. Voice Plus,
rep. by its Proprietor,
1st floor, Next to MRF Building,
Janatha Junction, Kaloor,
Palarivattom Road, Cochin-682 025.
O R D E R
Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.
1.Complainant's case
- The complainant purchased a Motorola Moto -G mobile phone on 03-02-2016 through online site. The 1st opposite party is the manufacturer of the mobile phone and the 2nd opposite party is the authorized service centre of the 1st opposite party in Cochin. The complainant was made to believe and was assured that the main feature of the phone is Turbo charging that is quick charging when compared to other mobile phones. It was also assured that damages or complaints caused to the mobile phone within the warranty period will also be cured at the instance of the 1st and 2nd opposite parties. After commission of one month from the date of purchase of the mobile phone the complainant notices some defects while charging the phone. When the mobile is plugged with trubocharger it was not recognizing the same. When it was charged in the normal mode there was no problem. The data transfer function of the device to the computer was working with a USB cable. However, when the charging problem arose this function also started malfunctioning. Due to the poor quality of the performance of the mobile phone the complainant approached the 2nd opposite party posed his grievance. The complainant was informed that the charging from USB was faulty and that it could be replaced within 25 days under warranty. The complainant could not afford to keep away the phone for 25 days and therefore he did not submit the phone for repairing. The complainant aired his grievance via e-mail to the 1st opposite party and the 1st opposite party assured that it will be repaired within a week. Accordingly, the phone was entrusted to the 2nd opposite party on 19-03-2016 by that time the voice clarity of the ear speaker also was found to be reduced. The complainant informed this new issue to the 2nd opposite party and he was told that opening and reassembling of the mobile phone involved a gum heating process that reduces the quality of the speaker in all Moto G mobiles. As against the promise given by the 1st opposite party the 2nd opposite party informed that the delivery could be effected only on 20 to 25 days. The mobile phone was however repaired by the 2nd opposite party after a period of 28 days and that was informed to the complainant. When the complainant went to collect the phone he found that the charging issue was not resolved and the turbocharger was replaced. Therefore he left the service centre without collecting the phone. After about 45 days the 2nd opposite party had rung up the complainant and informed him that the phone is ready. According to him he went there on 06-04-2016 to collect the phone on inspection it was seen that the turbo charger was replaced with an adapter of moto X force. There was no charging cable also. The ear speaker issued was also not resolved. The physical condition of the mobile phone has been significantly regraded and the site paral was found broken in two places. The complainant had to suffer a lot because he had not with a mobile phone which had affected his official work. The complainant was therefore compelled to purchase another mobile phone by spending about 12,000/- only due to the negligent act of the opposite parties. The complainant is legally entitled to get his phone replaced with a new one of same brand or to get refund of the value of the mobile phone. The complainant also seeks compensation and costs of this proceedings.
- Notices were issued to the opposite parties 1 and 2. Both of them were served with notice. The opposite party appeared but did not file any version and they did not adduce any evidence.
- When the matter came up for complainant's evidence the complainant filed proof affidavit and Exbts. A1 toA3 series documents were marked.
- Exbt. A1 document is the bill for Rs. 12,499/- in infavour of the complainant while purchasing the mobile phone on 03-02-2016. Exbt. A2 is the job card copy issued by the 2nd opposite party on 19-03-2016 while entrusting phone for repairs under warranty. The complainant filed a proof affidavit supporting the allegations contained in the complaint. The complainant had filed the copies of the email communications dated 27-03-2016, 17-04-2016, 27-03-2016, 19-03-2016, 20-3-2016, and 12-5-2016, they are marked as Exbt. A3 series. Exbt. A3 series would go to show that there was frequent communications from the complainant to the opposite parties airing his grievances. However, it is clear that the grievances of the complainant was not properly addressed by the opposite parties. The opposite parties did not even file any version and adduce evidence.
- The proof affidavit filed by the complainant and Exbts. A1 to A3series documents have proved the case of the complainant as alleged in the complaint. In the above circumstance, we find that the opposite parties 1 and 2 have committed serious deficiency in service. The phone went off within a period of two months from the date of purchase, and therefore the complainant is found entitled to get the phone replaced with a defect free brand new one of the same specifications. The complainant is also found entitled to get adequate compensation.
- In the result, we allow the complaint
i. directing the opposite parties 1 and 2 to replace the phone with a brand new one of the same specifications within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.
ii. The complainant is found entitled to realize an amount of Rs. 5,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 2,000/- towards costs. The opposite parties 1 and 2 are found jointly and severally liable to honour the directions as aforesaid.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 4th day of March 2017
Sd/-
Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.
Sd/-
Sheen Jose, Member.
Sd/-
Beena Kumari V.K., Member.
Forwarded/By Order,
Senior Superintendent
APPENDIX
Complainants Exhibits
Exbt. A1 series : Copy of G-mail dt. 27-03-2016
A2 : Retail Tax invoice
A3 : Customer detail dt. 19-03-2016 Opposite party's Exhibits: Nil
Copy of order despatched on :
By Post: By hand:
