PRESIDENT DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAMBALPUR

                                                     CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 72/2023

Present-Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, President,

  Sri. Sadananda Tripathy, Member,

Anup Panda, Aged about 33 years,

S/O-Bijaya Kumar Panda,

R/O-Fatak, Near Railway Station, PO-Budharaja

PS-Ainthapali, Dist-Sambalpur-768004, Odisha, India

Mob No. 9861462013.                                             ………………......Complainant.

Vrs.

1. Motorola Mobility India Pvt. Ltd.,

415/2, Mehrauli-Gurgaon Road, Sector 14, Near Maharana Pratap Chowk, Gurgaon, Haryana-122001.

2. Motorola Head office, Bagmara Tech,

Park No. 66/11, Plot No. 5, 5^th Floor, C.V. Raman Nagar, Bangalore-560092

3. Maa Samaleswari Mobile Care
1.  
2.  

Counsels:-

1. For the Complainant         :- Sri. Rajesh Kumar
2. For the O.P. No. 1              :- Sri. S.S.Panda & Associates
3. For the O.P. No.2 & 3        :- Ex-parte

Date of Filing:17.05.2023,Date of Hearing :13.02.2024,Date of Judgement : 08.04.2024

  Presented by Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, PRESIDENT

1. The case of the Complainant is that the Complainant purchased one Motorola (Moto E4+) product hand set/w 145792/Motorola HSN for Rs. 9999/- through Flipkart and product was delivered vide invoice No. FABBLii800003294 dated 02.09.2017. After six months problem started in the hand-set like Battery not charged to its full after 8 to 10 hours, frequently shut down, appearance of blank screen etc. The O.P. no.1 was informed through O.P. no.2 but O.Ps remained silent. The Complainant thereafter made correspondences through his uncle Jaynarayan Panda. The O.P. no.3 was also approached. The O.P. No.3 made minor repair, handset started functioning for few days but again same problem started. Non-repair of the handset by O.P. No.1 & 2 amounts to deficiency in service. Tow Advocate notices were sent. The handset is with O.P. no.3 and vide job sheet No. 60200002276 dated 23.08.2018 it was received by O.P. No.3.

Being aggrieved this complaint has been filed.

2. The O.P. No.1 in its reply submitted that there is no deficiency on the part of the O.P. Excellent service has been provided to the Complainant. On 02.09.2027 the handset was validated. The Complainant never approached the O.P. The entire contention has been denied. No legal notice has been received by the O.P. The claim is vexatious.
3. The Complainant has filed the invoice dated 02.09.20217 for Rs. 9999/- regarding purchase of the handset. From Service order dated 27.08.2018 it reveals that handset was dead. Likewise service order dated 16.05.2018 and 23.05.2018 reflects handset was dead. Pleader notice was sent to O.P. and in reply dated 06.10.2018 the O.P. offered free of cost repair and extended warranty.

The O.P. no.1 filed following service order 1430101805160003, 143101805230002 & 1430101805160004.

4. Perused the documents filed by both the parties. The transaction are for the years 2017 and 2018. No doubt Corona Pandemic broke during the period 2019 to 2022 but the Complainant has not explained why delay was made in filing the Complaint and duly filed on 17.05.2023. No any limitation petition has been filed. The service requests are entirely made in 2017 and 2018. Thereafter no any single document has been filed relating to cause of action. As the Complainant failed to establish the deficiency in service of O.Ps within the period of limitation of 2 years, we are not inclined to grant any relief. The Complaint is dismissed as barred by limitation.

Order pronounced in the open court on 8^th day of April 2024.

Supply free copies to the parties.