Mobile Galleria V/S Ashesh Gupta - Consumer Court Case

Karnataka

Bangalore Urban

CC/08/1927

Ashesh Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mobile Galleria - Opp.Party(s)

Shiva and Rawley

05 Jan 2009

ORDER

BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSLAL FORUM, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA STATE.
Bangalore Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Cauvery Bhavan, 8th Floor, BWSSB Bldg., K. G. Rd., Bangalore-09.
consumer case(CC) No. CC/08/1927

Ashesh Gupta						...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
Mobile Galleria						...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED: 29.08.2008 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN) 05th JANUARY 2009 PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER COMPLAINT NO. 1927/2008 COMPLAINANT Mr. Asesh Guptha, S/o. M. Subramanyam, Aged about 20 years, Batch No. BSW 027, ANTS Studio Pvt. Ltd., 2nd Floor, RD Complex, 8th Main, Basaveswarnagar, Bangalore 560 079. Advocate (N. Shiva Kumar) V/s. OPPOSITE PARTIES 1. M/s. Mobile Galleria, Motorola Regional Office, No. 474, 1st Cross, 1st Block, 3rd Stage, Basaveswaranagar, Bangalore 79. 2. M/s. Motorola Co. Ltd., No. 21/1, 5th Cross, Next to Domine Pidza, 5th Cross, Malleshwaram, Bangalore 560 003. 3. Motorola India Pvt. Ltd., 415/2, Mehrauli Gurgaon Road, Sector 14, Gurgaon 122 001 Haryana. O R D E R This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to replace the defective handset and pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- on an allegations of deficiency in service. The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under: Complainant purchased one Motorola mobile phone from OP.1 the dealer manufactured by OP.3 distributed by OP.2 for a valid consideration of Rs.3,050/- on 29th July 2008. It carried warranty for a year. Within a span of few days that is on 01.08.2008 complainant felt defect in the manufacture of the said handset, it started giving so many problems, did no function as per expectation. Immediately he contacted the OP.1, OP.1 directed him to contact Ucom Technologies the authorized service station for Motorola. He took the said handset and gave it to him not once but for three times, the said service centre told him that the defect in the handset is due to software, poor performance, function, there is a key pad problem and speaker problem. Though the said service centre attended to the defect, but it is unable to detect the defect and cure the same to the perfection. The repeated requests and demands made by the complainant to the said service station as well as OPs, went in futile. Being fed up with hostile attitude of the OPs he even sought for replacement of the handset, again there was no response. Though complainant invested his hard earned money to get a defect free handset, he is unable to reap the fruits of his investment because of the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the relief accordingly. 2. On appearance, OP.1 filed the version mainly contending that he is only a retailer, he has nothing to do with the defect in the manufacture of the said handset. As there is a warranty for the said handset, complainant can redress his grievance against OP.2 and 3. No liability lies with OP.1. The claim against him is frivolous. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP.1. Among these grounds, OP.1 prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. OP.2 and 3 though served with a notice, remained absent, hence placed ex-parte. 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP.1 has also filed the affidavit evidence. Then the arguments were heard. 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under: Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has proved the deficiency in service on the part of the OPs? Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs now claimed? Point No. 3 :- To what Order? 5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on: Point No.1:- In Affirmative Point No.2:- Affirmative in part Point No.3:- As per final Order. R E A S O N S 6. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainant has purchased one Motorola handset from the retailer OP.1 which is manufactured by OP.3 and distributed by OP.2 for a valid consideration of Rs.3,050/- on 29th July 2008. A receipt is produced. The said handset carried warranty for a year. The warranty card is also produced. It is the grievance of the complainant that within a span of 2-3 days he experienced some defects in the handset, hence on 01.08.2008 he contacted the OP.1 and narrated him the above defects found in the handset. As per the directions of OP.1 he took the handset to the authorized service centre Ucom Technologies not once but twice or thrice. The Ucom Technologies having received the said handset for repairs issued the job card. The copies of the job cards are produced. 7. It is further contended by the complainant that though the said Ucom Technologies repaired the handset, but it is unable to detect the defect and cure the same. We find there is a substance in the allegation of the complainant. On the perusal of the job card and other complaints noted, it appears there is a defect with a software, poor performance, function, key paid problem, speaker problem, etc. If complainant experienced such problems within a span of 3 days from the date of purchase of the handset, naturally he must have suffered both mental agony and financial loss. Complainant invested his hard earned money to get defect free mobile, unfortunately he is unable to reap the fruits of his investment. On the other hand OP.1 having retained the said huge amount without selling defect free handset accrued the wrongful gain to itself, thereby caused wrongful loss to the complainant. 8. The non-appearance of the OP.2 and 3 leads us to draw an inference that they admit all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. The defence set out by the OP.1 that he is only a retailer, no obligation lies on him either for replacement or for refund the cost of the handset appears to be defence for defence sake, just to avoid his liability and responsibility. When OP.1 received the said huge amount it is his bounden duty to see that he sells defect free handset. 9. The repeated requests and demands made by the complainant to OP to replace the handset or refund the cost, went in futile. The evidence of the complainant which finds full corroboration with the contents of the undisputed documents appears to be very much natural cogent and consistent. There is nothing to discard his sworn testimony. It is a quality of evidence that is more important than that of the quantity. As against the unimpeachable evidence of the complainant, the defence set out by the OP.1 appears to be a mere eye wash, just to shirk its responsibility. There is a proof of deficiency in service on the part of the OP. In our considered view all the OPs are jointly and severally liable to compensate the complainant. With these reasons we answer point nos.1 and 2 accordingly and proceed to pass the following: O R D E R The complaint is allowed in part. OP.1 to 3 are jointly and severally directed to replace defective Motorola handset with a defect free brand new Motorola handset of the same model and take back the defective handset and pay a litigation cost of Rs.500/- within 4 weeks from the date of communication of this order. In default OP.1 to 3 are jointly and severally directed to refund Rs.3,050/- and pay a compensation of Rs.500/- and litigation cost of Rs.500/-. (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 05th day of January 2009.) MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT p.n.g.

COMPLAINT FILED: 29.08.2008 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN) 05th JANUARY 2009 PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER COMPLAINT NO. 1927/2008 COMPLAINANT Mr. Asesh Guptha, S/o. M. Subramanyam, Aged about 20 years, Batch No. BSW 027, ANTS Studio Pvt. Ltd., 2nd Floor, RD Complex, 8th Main, Basaveswarnagar, Bangalore 560 079. Advocate (N. Shiva Kumar) V/s. OPPOSITE PARTIES 1. M/s. Mobile Galleria, Motorola Regional Office, No. 474, 1st Cross, 1st Block, 3rd Stage, Basaveswaranagar, Bangalore 79. 2. M/s. Motorola Co. Ltd., No. 21/1, 5th Cross, Next to Domine Pidza, 5th Cross, Malleshwaram, Bangalore 560 003. 3. Motorola India Pvt. Ltd., 415/2, Mehrauli Gurgaon Road, Sector 14, Gurgaon 122 001 Haryana. O R D E R This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to replace the defective handset and pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- on an allegations of deficiency in service. The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under: Complainant purchased one Motorola mobile phone from OP.1 the dealer manufactured by OP.3 distributed by OP.2 for a valid consideration of Rs.3,050/- on 29th July 2008. It carried warranty for a year. Within a span of few days that is on 01.08.2008 complainant felt defect in the manufacture of the said handset, it started giving so many problems, did no function as per expectation. Immediately he contacted the OP.1, OP.1 directed him to contact Ucom Technologies the authorized service station for Motorola. He took the said handset and gave it to him not once but for three times, the said service centre told him that the defect in the handset is due to software, poor performance, function, there is a key pad problem and speaker problem. Though the said service centre attended to the defect, but it is unable to detect the defect and cure the same to the perfection. The repeated requests and demands made by the complainant to the said service station as well as OPs, went in futile. Being fed up with hostile attitude of the OPs he even sought for replacement of the handset, again there was no response. Though complainant invested his hard earned money to get a defect free handset, he is unable to reap the fruits of his investment because of the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the relief accordingly. 2. On appearance, OP.1 filed the version mainly contending that he is only a retailer, he has nothing to do with the defect in the manufacture of the said handset. As there is a warranty for the said handset, complainant can redress his grievance against OP.2 and 3. No liability lies with OP.1. The claim against him is frivolous. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP.1. Among these grounds, OP.1 prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. OP.2 and 3 though served with a notice, remained absent, hence placed ex-parte. 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP.1 has also filed the affidavit evidence. Then the arguments were heard. 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under: Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has proved the deficiency in service on the part of the OPs? Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs now claimed? Point No. 3 :- To what Order? 5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on: Point No.1:- In Affirmative Point No.2:- Affirmative in part Point No.3:- As per final Order. R E A S O N S 6. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainant has purchased one Motorola handset from the retailer OP.1 which is manufactured by OP.3 and distributed by OP.2 for a valid consideration of Rs.3,050/- on 29th July 2008. A receipt is produced. The said handset carried warranty for a year. The warranty card is also produced. It is the grievance of the complainant that within a span of 2-3 days he experienced some defects in the handset, hence on 01.08.2008 he contacted the OP.1 and narrated him the above defects found in the handset. As per the directions of OP.1 he took the handset to the authorized service centre Ucom Technologies not once but twice or thrice. The Ucom Technologies having received the said handset for repairs issued the job card. The copies of the job cards are produced. 7. It is further contended by the complainant that though the said Ucom Technologies repaired the handset, but it is unable to detect the defect and cure the same. We find there is a substance in the allegation of the complainant. On the perusal of the job card and other complaints noted, it appears there is a defect with a software, poor performance, function, key paid problem, speaker problem, etc. If complainant experienced such problems within a span of 3 days from the date of purchase of the handset, naturally he must have suffered both mental agony and financial loss. Complainant invested his hard earned money to get defect free mobile, unfortunately he is unable to reap the fruits of his investment. On the other hand OP.1 having retained the said huge amount without selling defect free handset accrued the wrongful gain to itself, thereby caused wrongful loss to the complainant. 8. The non-appearance of the OP.2 and 3 leads us to draw an inference that they admit all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. The defence set out by the OP.1 that he is only a retailer, no obligation lies on him either for replacement or for refund the cost of the handset appears to be defence for defence sake, just to avoid his liability and responsibility. When OP.1 received the said huge amount it is his bounden duty to see that he sells defect free handset. 9. The repeated requests and demands made by the complainant to OP to replace the handset or refund the cost, went in futile. The evidence of the complainant which finds full corroboration with the contents of the undisputed documents appears to be very much natural cogent and consistent. There is nothing to discard his sworn testimony. It is a quality of evidence that is more important than that of the quantity. As against the unimpeachable evidence of the complainant, the defence set out by the OP.1 appears to be a mere eye wash, just to shirk its responsibility. There is a proof of deficiency in service on the part of the OP. In our considered view all the OPs are jointly and severally liable to compensate the complainant. With these reasons we answer point nos.1 and 2 accordingly and proceed to pass the following: O R D E R The complaint is allowed in part. OP.1 to 3 are jointly and severally directed to replace defective Motorola handset with a defect free brand new Motorola handset of the same model and take back the defective handset and pay a litigation cost of Rs.500/- within 4 weeks from the date of communication of this order. In default OP.1 to 3 are jointly and severally directed to refund Rs.3,050/- and pay a compensation of Rs.500/- and litigation cost of Rs.500/-. (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 05th day of January 2009.) MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT p.n.g.