DIST.CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KHURDA, BHUBANESWAR:

                                                -ooOoo-

C.D.CASE NO.07/2016

Sri Basudev Mohanty, aged about  41 years,

S/o Late – Jayakrushna Mohanty,

O/O The Engineer-in-chief (Electricity),

Power House square, Unit – V, Bhubaneswar- 751001

….     Complainant

-Vrs.-

1.       Motorola  Smart Services,

          15/E, (666),  In front of Lane – 4,

Bapuji Nagar, Bhubaneswar – 751009

2.       Motorola Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. ,

          Motorola Excellence Centre,

          415/2, Mehrauli- Gurgaon Road,

          Sector – 14, Gurgaon – 122 001

          Haryana, India

3.       WS Retail Services Pvt. Ltd.,

          42/1 & 43, Kacherakanahalli Village,

          Jadigenahalli Hobli, Hoskote Taluk,

          Bangalore – 560067, Karnataka, India.

                                                                             ….     Opp. Parties

For the complainant      :         Mr. S.Das  (Adv.) & Associates

For the O.Ps         1 & 2                   :         Exparte

For the OP.3                            :         Mr.B.P.Sarangi (Adv.) & Associates.

DATE OF FILING         :         11/01/2016

DATE OF ORDER        :         19/08/2022

ORDER

K.C.RATH, PRESIDENT

1.       This is an application U/s 12 of the C.P.Act, 1986.

2.       The complainant’s case in brief is that, he had purchased one Motorola Mobile hand set from the OP.3 for a consideration amount of Rs.7999/-. The hand set was covered under one year warranty. After the purchase of the said hand set, the complainant  found that one SIM slot of the hand set was not working . He contacted the OP.1 who is the authorized service centre of the Motorola hand set. The OP.1 asked the complainant to bear 75% of the total repairing expenditure. As the said hand set was covered under one year warranty, the complainant instead of going for repair on payment basis, filed this complaint.   

3.       On the other hand, the  OPs 1 & 2 were set exparte. The OP.3  filed written version. It is contended by the OP.3 that he is the registered re-seller on the website “Flipkart.com” and sells products of other manufacturers, traders, etc.  He admitted to have sold the hand set in question to the complainant. But according to the OP.3,  as the warranty was given by the manufacturer, the complainant should seek his remedy either against the manufacturer or its service centre. The OP.3 who is just a seller of the product has not given any warranty. As such,  the complaint is not maintainable against him, rather it should be dismissed with cost. 

4        Perused the materials on record.  There is no dispute regarding  the fact that the complainant had purchased the Motorola Mobile handset from the OP.3 for a consideration amount of Rs.7999/-. There is also no dispute about the fact that the said hand set was covered under one year warranty. Defect in the product was noticed  within the warranty period. Under such situation,  the authorized service centre of the manufacturer should have  repaired  and removed  the defect  in the handset in question free of cost. Instead of doing so, they charged 75% of the total expenditure  of repair cost on the complainant which is not fair. Under such situation,  keeping in view the facts  and circumstances of the case, I find that the complaint bears merit. Hence it is ordered.

ORDER

The complaint is  allowed  exparte against the OPs 1 & 2 and on contest against the OP.3. The OP No.1  is   hereby directed  to repair and remove the defect  in the handset in question free of cost. If the handset can not be repaired or defect can not be removed for any reason beyond the control of the OP.1, then he should give it in writing to the complainant. Thereupon, the OP.3 is directed  to refund the consideration amount of  Rs.7999/- that he had taken from the complainant for the mobile set. In addition to that, the OP.3  is  directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/-   (Rupees two thousand) only towards mental agony suffered by the complainant and a further sum of Rs.1000/-  (Rupees one thousand) only towards litigation expenses.  The  order be complied with by the OPs as stated above    within a period of one month from the date of communication of this order,   failing which the complainant will be  at liberty to execute the order  against the OPs  in accordance with law.

The order is pronounced on this day the   19^th August,  2022  under the seal & signature of the President and Members  of the Commission.

                                                                                      (K.C.RATH)    

                                                                                       PRESIDENT

 Dictated & corrected by me

          President                                                                                    

I agree                                                                    

(S.Tripathy)                                                                           

Member (W)                                                                              

Transcribed by Smt. M.Kanungo, Sr.Steno