DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, NORTH-WEST
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
CSC-BLOCK-C, POCKET-C, SHALIMAR BAGH, DELHI-110088.
CC No: 639/2017
D.No._______________________ Date: __________________
IN THE MATTER OF:
Mrs. MALA KUMARI,
W/o SH. ANGAD BHARTI,
R/o 120, 2nd FLOOR, 1-3, SEC.-16,
ROHINI, DELHI-110089. … COMPLAINANT
Versus
1. AMAZON SELLER SERVCIES PVT. LTD.,
BRIGADE GATEWAY, 8th FLOOR, 21/1,
DR. RAJKUMAR ROAD, MALLESHWARAM WEST,
BENGALURU-560055, KARNATAKA.
2. MOTOROLA MOBILITY INDIA (P) LTD.,
THROUGH THE MANAGER,
12th FLOOR, TOWER-D, DLF CYBER GREENS,
DLF CYBER CITY, GURUGRAM-122002 (INDIA).
3. M/s GREEN MOBILES,
THROUGH THE MANAGER,
ANJANEYA INFRA. PROJECT No.38 & 39,
SOUKYA ROAD, KACHERAKANAHALLI,
MOSKOTE TALUKA,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT,
BANGALORE-560067, KARNATAKA (INDIA).
4. MOTOROLA (SERVICE CENTRE),
THROUGH THE MANAGER,
B2X-052 MAX MOBILE CARE,
SHOP No.-56, 57, AGGARWAL CITY MALL,
PITAM PURA, DELHI-110036. … OPPOSITE PARTY(IES)
CORAM:SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT
SH. BARIQ AHMED, MEMBER
MS. USHA KHANNA, MEMBER
Date of Institution: 01.08.2017 Date of decision:07.11.2019
CC No.639/2017 Page 1 of 6
SH. BARIQ AHMED, MEMBER
ORDER
1. The complainant has filed the present complaint against OPs under Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 thereby alleging that on 20.07.2016, the complainant purchased one MOTO G Plus, 4th Gen. (Black 32 GB) mobile handset manufactured by OP-2 from e-commerce website of OP-1 vide invoice no. KA-BLRS-167791461- 306565 dated 20.07.2016. Thereafter, the above said mobile handset started getting extra hot while being used within one week of purchase and on complaining to the customer care phone number of OP-2, the complainant was told to visit service centre of Motorola Mobile and the official of the service centre said that it is a small problem with all MOTO G mobile handset and so they cannot do anything about this. The complainant further alleged that she is a house-wife and was having no other alternative available at that time so the complainant continued to use this defective mobile handset reluctantly. On 09.06.2017, the said mobile handset got excessive hot and abruptly stopped working and the complainant contacted the consumer care of OP-2 and they asked the complainant to visit the service centre of OP-2 at Pitam Pura, Delhi and the complainant visited the Motorola service centre at Pitam Pura, Delhi. The complainant further alleged that they took the mobile handset and again commented that this problem is inherent with all mobile phones of this type and they issued a record slip after taking the said mobile handset vide no.
CC No.639/2017 Page 2 of 6
SRB2X05217060900 23 dated 09.06.2017. After a week when the complainant visited the service centre at Pitam Pura, Delhi, the complainant was told that the service centre contact with OP-2 is no more existing so the said mobile handset has been sent to a new service centre at Tilak Nagar, Delhi and the complainant called telephonically to the service centre at Tilak Nagar, Delhi but they are not able to tell the complainant the exact date by which they will be repairing the mobile handset and the mobile handset is still lying with the service centre of OP-2 since then. The complainant further alleged that OP-1 has supplied the defective mobile handset to the complainant which was getting abnormally hot without any reason and as the complainant complained to the customer care of OP-2 at many times who instead of calling back the defective mobile handset, mis-guided the complainant, suggesting it a small and negligible problem. The complainant further alleged that the mobile handset is inherently defective and has always got unnecessary abnormally hot it did not work like a normal mobile handset and OPs have supplied the defective mobile and they have to make good the losses suffered by the complainant and compensate the complainantwho 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.14,999/- being the cost of the mobile handset alongwith interest @ 18% p.a.
CC No.639/2017 Page 3 of 6
as well as compensation of Rs.10,000/- for mental, physical agony and harassment and has also sought Rs.1,000/- as cost of litigation.
3. Notices to OP-2 & OP-3 were issued through speed post for appearance on 01.11.2017 and the notice to OP-2 was served on 14.08.2017 and OP-3 was served on 21.08.2017 but none have appeared on behalf of OP-2 & OP-3 and as such OP-2 & OP-3 were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 01.11.2017.
4. Only OP-1 is contesting the case and filed reply and submitted that OP-1 neither sells nor offers to sell any product but merely provides an online market place where independent 3rd party sellers list their products for sell who are responsible for their respective listing & products & as such the present case is not maintainable as against OP-1 and is liable to be dismissed.
5. The complainant filed rejoinder and denied the contentions of OP-1.
6. In order to prove her case, the complainant filed her affidavit in evidence and has also filed written arguments. The complainant has also placed on record copy of retail tax invoice dated 20.07.2016 for a sum of Rs.14,999/- issued by Amazon, copy of MOTO Service Record dated 09.06.2017 issued by Motorola and copies of e-mail communications between the parties.
7. On the other hand, on behalf of OP-1 Sh. Rahul Sundaram, Senior Corporate Counsel/AR of OP-1 filed his affidavit in evidence. OP-1
CC No.639/2017 Page 4 of 6
also filed copy of terms & conditions. OP-1 also filed written arguments.
8. This forum has considered the case of the complainant in the light of evidence and documents placed on record by the complainant and OP-1. 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 notices of this case from this Forum, OP-2 & OP-3 have kept mum and have not bothered to answer the case of the complainant, showing that they have no defence at all in theirfavour.
9. On perusal of the record, we find that the complainant made complaint of his mobile to the service center of OP-2 at Pitam Pura, Delhi where the mobile handset was retained for repair and was transferred to another service centre of OP-2 and the mobile handset is still lying with the service centre unrepaired. It was the duty of the OP-2 to rectify the defect or to replace the product.Acustomer/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-2being the manufacturer 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 10 months.
CC No.639/2017 Page 5 of 6
10. Accordingly, OP-2, is directed as under:
i) To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.8,000/- being the depreciated value of the mobile handset on return original invoice and job sheet.
ii) To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.7,000/- ascompensationtowards mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant.
iii) To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.1,000/- towards cost of litigation.
11. The above amount shall be paid by OP-2 to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receiving copy of this order failing which OP-2 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-2 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.
12. 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 7thday of November, 2019.
BARIQ AHMED USHA KHANNA M.K. GUPTA
(MEMBER) (MEMBER) (PRESIDENT)
CC No.639/2017 Page 6 of 6
