Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 633
Instituted on : 25/11/2019
Decided on : 25.11.2024
Sandeep Gupta s/o Sh. Subhash Gupta R/o # Gupta Motors, near old bus stand, Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Golden Enterprises, (Service Centre) Shop No. 3, Bapu Ashram Complex, Chhotu Ram Chowk, Rohtak-124001.
- Motorola Mobility India Pvt. Ltd. (Manufacturing company) 12th floor, Tower- D, DLF Cyber Greens, DLFCyberCity, Gurugram-122002.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT UNDER THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT.
BEFORE: SH. NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR. VIJDENER SINGH, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. ShubhamManchanda, Adv. for the complainant.
Sh. Parmod Kumar, Adv. for the OP no.2.
OP no.1 already exparte.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT :
1. Brief facts of the case, as per the complainant, are that he had purchased a Mobile Phone, model Moto G6, IMEI number: 356518080689772, vide invoice no. MAA4-12779 dated 13.06.2018 for Rs.15,999/- through Amazon. The said mobile phone was having one year warranty/guarantee against all manufacturing defects. During the warranty period, the said mobile phone became defective and the complainant visited to the opposite party no.2 (service centre) and there were defects like heating problem, Audio problem, network issues, touch not working, volume button malfunctioning etc., due to which the complainant could not enjoy the facilities of said mobile phone. The complainant visited to the Service Centre and requested for replacement of said mobile phone but the opposite party refused to do so. The opposite parties have failed to remove the defect despite repeated requests, visits and even after issuance of legal notice dated 26.04.2019 by the complainant. This act and conduct on the part of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service. It is prayed that the opposite parties may kindly be directed to replace the mobile phone with new one or to refund the amount of Rs.15,999/- along with interest and litigation expenses to the complainant besides any other relief, to which the complainant is found entitled.
2. Upon notice, the opposite party No. 2 appeared and filed the written statement. In its written statement, the opposite party No. 2 has submitted that the company deals in Motorola and Lenovo Phone brands and is authorized to manufacture/sell the same. The complainant had visited the authorized service center of the answering opposite party on 27.12.2018 with his mobile phone with underlying issue of battery, network and non-functioning of touch screen. The said device was checked by the technical team of the answering opposite party at service centre, who replaced touch screen and resolved the concern of the complainant to his contentment. The complainant again visited the authorized service centre of opposite party on 31.01.2019 with underlying issue of non working of touch screen. At this time, the technical team requested the complainant to submit the phone for repairs for 2-3 days as part was not available but the complainant did not agree and took back his device unrepaired. He again visited on 14.03.2019 raising the issue of low battery backup. This time, the technical team replaced the battery to the satisfaction of the complainant. The complainant again visited service centre on 29.04.2019 with underlying issue of automatically closing of the application and restarting of the device. The technical team of authorized service centre updated the software of the device. But again the complainant visited the service centre on 20.06.2019 with underlying issue of power on/off and after checking the device, the technical team refunded the full amount of invoice to the costumer, hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed on this sole ground. The opposite party never denied services to the complainant, provided the services to his satisfaction of complainant and now ready to offer its services to the complainant as and when required on a chargeable basis. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No. 2 and the complainant is not entitled for any claim/relief. However, as per the contents of complaint, the complainant had purchased a mobile phone model Moto Z2 force (XT1789-06) bearing IMEI no.356518080689772 but as per the record of the opposite party, the invoice which the complainant has attached is of a mobile phone model moto G6 bearing IMEI no.351866091400480. Accordingly, dismissal of complaint has been sought by the opposite party No. 2 with costs being the same not maintainable.
3. Notice issued to the opposite party No. 1 was got served through Process Server of this Commission but he failed to appear before the Commission and was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 16.08.2022 of this Commission.
4. Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit Ex. CW1/A and documents Ex. C-1 to Ex. C-5 in his evidence and closed the same on dated 08.06.2023. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has tendered affidavit Ex. RW2/A and documents Ex. R1 and Ex. R2 in his evidence and closed the same on dated 06.11.2023.
5. We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents placed on record and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
6. In the present case, the complainant had purchased the mobile in question on dated 13.12.2018 for a sum of Rs.15999/- as is proved from the bill Ex.C4.As per this bill, the model of the mobile is Moto G6(Indigo Black64GB) and IMEI No.is 351866091400480 whereas as per the complaint, the IMEI no. of the mobile is mentioned as 356518080689772. As per legal notice, the mobile no. is mentioned as 351866091400480. Hence from the documents Ex.C2 and Ex.C4 it is established that the complainant had purchased the mobile bearing IMEI No.351866091400480. But he has filed the complaint for the mobile having IMEI No.356518080689772. As per written statement filed by opposite party No.2 as well as service orders detail Ex.R1, opposite party has also filed the detail of mobile bearing IMEI No.356518080689772. As per written statement filed by the opposite party, it is contended that the complainant had purchased a mobile phone model Moto Z2 force (XT1789-06) bearing IMEI no.356518080689772 but he has filed the complaint for the mobile bearing IMEI no.351866091400480. We have perused the documents placed on record by both the parties. As per the bill placed on record by the complainant as Ex.C4, the IMEI Number of the mobile of the complainant is 351866091400480.Whereas as per the service order detail Ex.R1, at the bottom of this document, the name of customer is ‘Shivam Bansal’ and the amount is refunded to the mobile having IMEI No.356518080224844 & 356518080224851. But the other detail mentioned in this document is of mobile having IMEI No.356518080689772&356518080689780. Whereas the IMEI no. of the mobile of complainant as mentioned in the bill and legal notice is 351866091400480. But neither any date has been mentioned in the complaint on which the defects appeared in the mobile nor any job sheet has been placed on record by the complainant to prove the fact that the defect occurred in the mobile bearing IMEI no. 351866091400480. Hence complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint. As such present complaint stands dismissed with no order as to costs
8. Application(s) pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
9. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
25.11.2024.
........................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
TriptiPannu, Member.
……………………………….
Vijender Singh, Member
