Delhi

North East

RBT/CC/248/2022

VIKRAM SHAH - Complainant(s)

Versus

B2X MAX MOBILE CARE - Opp.Party(s)

23 Nov 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

RBT/Complaint Case No. 248/22

 

In the matter of:

 

	Sh. Vikram Shah S/o Sh. Raj Pal R/o   Khasra NO. 626, 2nd Floor, Numberdaar Colony, Opp. North End Public School, Burari, Delhi-110084	Complainant
	Versus
1.           2.                   3.         4.	B2X( Max Mobile Care) (Authorized Service Centre of Motorola Mobiles) Shop NO. 56-57 Aggarwal City Mall, Pitampura, Delhi-110036   Motorola Excellence Centre 415/2, Mehrauli Gurgaon Road, Sector 14, Near Maharan Pratap Chowk, Gurugram, Haryana, 122001   Flipkart India Pvt. Ltd. No. 42/1 & 43, Kacherakanahalli Village, Jadigenahalli Hobli Hoskote Taluk, Bengaluru -560067   Service & Communication Solutions A 180, Ist Floor, Sukhdev Nagar Market Bhishma Pitamha Marg, Kotla Mubarakpur, Timber Market, Main Road, Opp. Indusind Bank, Near Defence Colony Market Red Light New Delhi-110003	Opposite Parties

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:         JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:        DATE OF ORDER

09.03.18 29.05.23 23.11.23

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

Adarsh Nain, Member

ORDER

Ms. Adarsh Nain, Member

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer protection Act, 1986 against the Opposite Party No.1

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant is that the Complainant booked a handset Moto G 5+ through online on 09.05.17 and Opposite Party No.3 gave order no. OD 109112976982986000. Thereafter, on 09.05.17 a deliver boy delivered the said handset having IMEI No. 351892082915534 & 351892082915540 for Rs. 17,089/- against invoice no. FOYQK03118-00150093. The Complainant stated that the newly purchased handset was not working properly and Complainant approached Opposite Party No.2 and 3 to replace the said handset and the said handset was replaced by Opposite Party 2 which is manufacturer against new invoice No. FOYQK03118-00238912 dated 23.05.17 vide new IMEI No. 351892082804456 & 351892082804464. The Complainant stated that the replaced set was also not working properly. On 10.06.17 Complainant approached Opposite Party No.1 and official of Opposite Party No.1 received said handset for repairing against job sheet no. SRB2X052170610026. Thereafter official of Opposite Party No.1 updated the software and returned the handset in one hour. The Complainant stated same problem occured again the said handset and on 15.06.17 Opposite Party No.1 again received said handset against job sheet no. SRB2X0521706150015 but Complainant wanted replacement or refund of said handset but Opposite Party No.1 refused to do so. On 17.06.17 Complainant approached Opposite Party No.1 and Opposite Party No.1 received handset along with charger against manual job sheet dated 17.06.17 and assured Complainant to return said handset within 15 to 25 days to Complainant. The Complainant contacted Opposite Party No.1 many times to return his mobile but all in vain. On 03.09.17 Complainant received call from Opposite Party No.4 that his handset is ready and found that display and camera module are replaced. The Complainant stated that there are yellow spots on newly replaced screen thereafter Complainant again handover said handset on 11.11.17 to Opposite Party No.4 vide job sheet no. 3353 and Opposite Party No.4 assured Complainant to return said handset within 4-5 days. Thereafter Complainant approached Opposite Parties several times for repairing his said mobile as it is covered under warranty but all in vain. Hence, this shows deficiency on behalf of Opposite Parties. The Complainant has prayed for the cost of the mobile handset of Rs. 17,089/- with interest from the date of purchase. He has also prayed for Rs. 50,000/- towards mental harassment and Rs. 1,100/- for litigation cost.
2. None has appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.1, 2 and 4 to contest the case. Therefore, Opposite Party No.1, 2 and 4 were proceeded against Ex-parte vide order dated 07.08.18, 04.06.18 and 08.01.19 respectively.

Case of the Opposite Party No.3

3. The Opposite Party No.3 contested the case and filed written statement. The Opposite Party No.3 i.e. Flipkart India Pvt limited takes the preliminary objections that they have been wrongly arrayed in the instant complaint as they do not sell any products to end customers. They are whole seller and in involved in B2B sales. Opposite Party No.3 submits that the complainant might have confused with www.flipkart.com which is owned by Flipkart internet Pvt. Limited, a separate and distinct entity. It has been prayed that in view of above fact, the complaint needs to be dismissed against them as there has been no transaction between the Complainant and the answering Opposite Party.

Evidence of the Complainant

4. The Complainant in support of his complaint filed his evidence by way of affidavit wherein he has supported the averments made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Opposite Party No.3

5. In order to prove its case Opposite Party No.3 has filed affidavit of Sh. Satyajeet Bhattacharya, Authorised Signatory of Opposite Party No.3, wherein the averments made in the written statement of Opposite Party No.3 have been supported.

Arguments and Conclusion

6. We have heard the Complainant in person.  We have also perused the file and the written arguments filed by the Opposite Party No.3.
7. The case of the Complainant is that that he purchased a new handset from Opposite Party No.2 that is Motorola Excellence Centre (Manufacturer) for Rs. 17,089/- and the handset was replaced by Opposite Party No.2 as the Complainant complained about the functioning of the handset.  As per the Complainant, the replaced handset (subject handset) was also not working properly and the complainant approached the Opposite Party No.1, the seller and Opposite Party No.4, the service center for the repair/replacement of the subject handset as the same was covered under warranty but the Opposite Parties failed to replace the handset or refund for the same. The Complainant also alleged that since there were yellow spots on newly replaced screen, Complainant handed over said handset on 11.11.17 to Opposite Party No.4 vide job sheet no. 3353 which has not been returned. The Complainant alleges deficiency on the part of Opposite Parties and prayed for cost of the handset and compensation.
8. We have considered the contentions of the Complainant and also perused the record of the file including the pleadings. On perusal of the invoice of the mobile in question filed by the Complainant, it is clear that the handset in question was purchased by the Complainant on 23.05.2017. The Complainant has also filed several job-sheets issued by the service centre in support of his contention that handset in question was not working well. One of the job cards dated 15.06.2017 clearly mentions “software done at our end but the problem is still same. The said job card also mentions that that the Complainant did not want to get the set repaired but wanted refund while submitted twice in our centre.”  It is evident from the above that the Complainant had faced problems with the functioning of new mobile and submitted the same several times. Further the Complainant has produced the Customer Information slip dated 17.06.2017 which reveals that customer/Complainant was asked to come after 15 to 25 days. Further the job card dated 19.06.2017 shows that the handset was received by the Complainant from the service centre as the said document bears his signature. The said job card mentions the defective parts names and the replaced parts. Again perusal of job card dated 11.11.2017 shows that the Complainant again faced the problem with phone namely “yellow on display”. Since the Complainant again handed over said handset on 11.11.17 to Opposite Party No.4 vide job sheet no. 3353, the contention of the Complainant is that the Opposite party failed to refund the cost his mobile, hence, committed deficiency of service.
9. It is to be noted here that Opposite party No.2 is the manufacturer while the Opposite party No.4 is the service centre for Opposite Party No.2. It is relevant to mention here that only Opposite Party No.3 have contested the case while Opposite Party No. 1,3 and 4 have not put in appearance in spite of notice.
10. Opposite Party No.3 in its reply has taken the stand that they have been wrongly made the party and that the Complainant might have confused with www.flipkart.com which is owned by Flipkart internet Pvt. Limited, a separate and distinct entity. It has been contended by Opposite Party No.3 that there has been no transaction between the Complainant and the answering Opposite Party. Since the Complainant has not rebutted the said contention, same is accepted as true.
11.  As the Opposite Party No.3 has no role in the complaint and remaining three have failed to file their version, we are left with no option except to believe the version of the Complainant which is testified on oath. It is evident from the documentary evidence produced that the subject handset was not working properly and Complainant asked for refund of the cost of the handset. It is also evident that the said handset was under warranty period.
12.  Keeping in view the fact that subject handset was not working properly from the very beginning and could not be repaired after several efforts, we find that the Complainant was justified in asking the refund and the Opposite Party No.2 i.e. the manufacturer was under obligation to do so.
13. In view of above discussion and the unrebutted and uncontroverted testimony of the Complainant regarding the deficiency of services on the part of Opposite Party No.2, the manufacturer, we are of the considered view that the Opposite party No.2 Motorola Excellence Centre, the manufacturer, has been deficient in services by not providing the satisfactory services to the Complainant by failing to repair the handset in question and also in failing to make the refund of the cost of the mobile under warranty.
14. Thus, we allow the present complaint and direct the Opposite Party No.2 i.e. Motorola Excellence Centre , the manufacturer to pay to the complainant the cost of the handset i.e. 17,089/-with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of institution of the complaint till recovery . The Opposite Party shall also pay an amount of Rs. 25,000 /- to the Complainant as compensation and litigation expenses along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of this order till its recovery.
15. Order announced on 23.11.23.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(Anil Kumar Bamba)                Member

(Adarsh Nain)       Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma)                President