DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, NORTH-WEST
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
CSC-BLOCK-C, POCKET-C, SHALIMAR BAGH, DELHI-110088.
CC No: 460/2018
D.No._______________________ Date: __________________
IN THE MATTER OF:
ARJUN GARG S/o SH. JAI BHAGWAN,
R/o H-245, VIKAS PURI,
NEW DELHI-110018.… COMPLAINANT
Versus
1. M/s MOTOROLA MOBILITY INDIA (P) LTD.,
CYBER CITY, 12th FLOOR,
TOWER-D, DLF CYBER GREEN,
U-6 ROAD, DLF PHASE-3,
GURUGRAM-122002, HARYANA (INDIA).
2. TECHNOCARE SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD.,
F-11, UPPER GROUND FLOOR
JANAK PALACE DISTRICT CENTRE,
JANAK PURI, NEW DELHI-1100580. … OPPOSITE PARTY(IES)
CORAM:SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT
SH. BARIQ AHMED, MEMBER
MS. USHA KHANNA, MEMBER
Date of Institution: 17.07.2018
Date of decision:02.09.2019
SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT
ORDER
1. The complainant has filed the present complaint against OPs under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 thereby alleging that the complainant purchased a new mobile handset of OP-1
CC No.460/2018 Page 1 of 8
having model MOTO-Z, XT1650-03-HANDSETS/WA72325 vide IMEI no. 3541100712664476 & 354110071264484 vide cash invoice no. F0YQK03117-00574202 on 24.01.2017 for a sum of Rs.36,930/- through e-commerce website known as Flipkart i.e. a vendor of OP-1 and the said mobile handset came with one year warrantee and OP-1 received complete price of the mobile handset which was paid through online payment by the complainant. After few months of purchase the mobile handset started having problems by way of ‘freezing’, ‘crashing’, ‘overheating’, ‘battery draining soon after charge’, ‘phone getting switched off by itself’. The complainant further alleged that when the mobile handset in question started having the above mentioned problems frequently and more severally the complainant took the mobile handset to one of service centre of OP-1 on 02.09.2017 which is located at District Centre, JanakPuri, New Delhi in the name of the OP-2 and the concerned official of the service centre received the mobile handset and issued a service record no. SRCPT0361709020005 entered the problems and OP had diagnosed and assured the complainant that soon the problems would be rectified and asked the complainant to take back the phone in few hours. The complainant further alleged that the complainant then visited service centre of OP-2 to take back the mobile handset which was given for repair and it was duly handed over back by the concerned official of the service centre to
CC No.460/2018 Page 2 of 8
the complainant and original service receipt was taken back by the service centre but the mobile handset again started having problems soon after and the complainant again visited service centre of OP-2 in the month of October-2017 because the mobile handset was not at all in usable condition and was having the same problems in a more aggressive manner and again the same process and procedure was adopted by service centre of OP-2 and the mobile handset was taken by them and the same service record no. SRCPT0361709020005 was issued and assurances were given that the mobile handset will work like a new one. The complainant further alleged that the complainant then picked up the mobile handset service centre of OP-2 on 26.10.2017 and soon after same problems had arisen again and few months after purchase the mobile handset started giving problems and when given for repair, it could not be repaired by service centre of OP-2 apparently shows that the mobile handset is beyond repairable condition and the mobile handset sold by OP-1 is defective and faulty in nature from the day it was sold to the complainant and OP-1 sold a defective and faulty mobile handset to the complainant and the complainant paid complete price for a new mobile handset but the mobile handset in question never worked normally because it is completely defective in nature. Thereafter, the mobile handset in question came with 1-year warrantee but the warrantee applies to those
CC No.460/2018 Page 3 of 8
devices which can be repaired but the mobile handset in question is beyond repairable condition as the complainant has submitted the mobile handset for repair under warrantee twice but service centre of OP-2 has failed both the times. The complainant further alleged that the complainant had to buy another mobile handset because the business of the complainant depends on calling, messaging, whatsapp and e-mails which can be done through a mobile handset and the complainant suffered burden of buying another mobile handset of Rs.55,000/-of Samsung Company and also suffered loss in business and suffered mental agony by way of loss of reputation at the time when the mobile handset was in possession of OP-2 at the time of its repair and even after it was returned unrepaired. The complainant further alleged that the complainant also served a legal notice dated 18.01.2018 to OPs demanding that OP-1 company shall take back the faulty mobile handset and refund the cost of the mobile handset and a reply dated 08.02.2018 to the notice dated 18.01.2018 acknowledging the receiving of notice was served upon the complainant by OP-1. Thereafter, a final reply dated 15.03.2018 to the notice dated 18.01.2018 was served upon the complainant by OP-1 and in the said reply OP-1 has admitted that the complainant purchased the said mobile handset of the company, however, the date of purchase mentioned by them is wrong and in actual it is 24.01.2017 and not 2016, OP-1 has also
CC No.460/2018 Page 4 of 8
admitted that on 02.09.2017 a service request was generated and the mobile handset had problems of battery issues, heating, freezing and hanging issues and SR number SRCPT0361709020005 was issued and OP-1 in its reply has also stated that the complainant has itself agreed to the terms & conditions of the warrantee of the company and now cannot claim refund but it is submitted that the complainant has agreed to buy a new perfectly working the mobile handset and not a defective and faulty mobile handset which is beyond repairable condition and by selling a defective and faulty mobile handset OP-1 has itself committed breach of agreement and is liable to refund and compensate the complainant and has suffered a loss and further alleged that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs.
2. On these allegations the complainant has filed the complaint praying for direction to OPs to refund the amount of Rs.36,930/- against the claim as well as compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for mental, physical agony and harassment alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing the claim.
3. Notices to OPs were issued through speed post for appearance on 29.11.2018 and the notice to OP-1 was served on 22.11.2018 and the notice to OP-2 was served on 12.10.2018 but none has appeared on behalf of OPs and as such OPs were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 07.12.2018.
CC No.460/2018 Page 5 of 8
4. In order to prove his case, the complainant filed his affidavit in evidence and has also filed written arguments. The complainant has also placed on record copy of tax invoice dated 24.01.2017 for a sum of Rs.36,930/- issued by Flipkart, copy of job sheet dated 02.09.2017 issued by OP-2, copy of legal notice dated 18.01.2018 sent by the complainant through his Counsel to OPs by speed post, copy of reply dated 08.02.2018 sent by OP-1 through his Counsel to the complainant, copy of final reply dated 15.03.2018 sent by OP-1 to the complainant and copy of bill/invoice no. 196 dated 11.12.2017 of Rs.53,900/- for purchased Samsung S-8 mobile handset issued by We Serve, Vikas Puri, New Delhi.
5. This forum has considered the case of the complainant in the light of evidence and documents placed on record by the complainant. The case of the complainant has remained consistent and undoubted. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the case of the complainant. Moreover, it appears thateven after receiving summons of this case from this forum, the OPs have kept mum and have not bothered to answer the case of the complainant.
6. On perusal of the record, we find that the complainant made complaint of his mobile to the service center of OP-1 within warranty period. As such OP-1 ought not to refuse to repair the mobile handset within the warrantee period free of cost. It was the duty of the OP-1 to rectify the defect or to replace the product. A
CC No.460/2018 Page 6 of 8
customer/consumer is not expected to file complaint in respect of new product purchased. It is expected that the new product purchased is free from all sorts of defect in the product. Accordingly, OP-1 is held guilty of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. It is on record that the complainant has used the mobile handset for about 8 months.
7. Accordingly, OP-1 is directed as under:
i) To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.30,000/- being the depreciated value of the mobile handset on return of disputed mobile handset alongwith accessories, original invoice and job sheets.
ii) To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.15,000/- ascompensationtowards mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant.
iii) To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.6,000/- towards cost of litigation.
8. The above amount shall be paid by OP-1 to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receiving copy of this order failing which OP-1 shall be liable to pay interest on the entire awarded amount @ 10% perannum from the date of receiving copy of this order till the date of payment. If OP-1 fails to comply the order within 30 days from the date of receiving copy of this order, the complainant may approach this Forum u/s 25 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
CC No.460/2018 Page 7 of 8
9. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on this 2ndday of September, 2019.
BARIQ AHMED USHA KHANNA M.K. GUPTA
(MEMBER) (MEMBER) (PRESIDENT)
CC No.460/2018 Page 8 of 8
UPLOADED BY:SATYENDRA JEET
