Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/15/733

Samrat Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Motorala Excellence Centre - Opp.Party(s)

Simran Kaur Adv.

31 Jan 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

                                                          Complaint No:  733 of 21.12.2015.                                                            Date of Decision: 31.01.2017.

 

Samrat Singh aged 24 years s/o. S. Parveen Singh, r/o. village Bholapur (Jhabewal), Chandigarh Road, Ludhiana-141123, M # 9988736603                                                                                                         ..… Complainant

                                                Versus

1. Motorola Excellence Centre, 415/2, Mehrauli-Gurgaon Road, Sector 14, Gurgaon-122001, Haryana through its Managing Director, Phone Number:+91-124-4988500, +91- (124) 2303212
2. #Vignesh Services, Motorola Mobility India (P) Ltd., SCO 189-190, Sec-34a, Chandigarh, through its Regional Head, +91-172-3018028, +91-9216893555
3. Celltech India, Shop No.24, Lower Ground Floor, Surya Shopping Arcade, National Road, Bhai Wala Chowk, Ludhiana-141001, through its Local Head.

…..Opposite parties 

                                      Complaint under the Provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM:

SH. G.K. DHIR, PRESIDENT

SH. PARAM JIT SINGH BEWLI, MEMBER

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant            :         Ms. Simran Kaur Gurm, Advocate

For OP1 to OP3             :         Exparte.

ORDER

PER G.K. Dhir, PRESIDENT

1.                Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter referred as Act) filed by complainant by pleading that he purchased Motorola Mobile bearing IMEI no.353321067692643 for Rs.12,999/- online through flipkart.com vide  tax invoice bearing No.BLR_WFLD 20141000897183 dated 10.10.2014  with the hope that the said Motorola mobile being manufactured by reputed company, will not give trouble. However, mobile developed snags. Those snags developed on the mother board, screen slide issues, phone hanging, sim card slot problem & speaker problem even was faced by the complainant. These problems mentioned in the different job sheets. Despite relentless efforts through emails due response not received from Ops. Defective mobile set is lying in the custody of Ops for the past 7 months. Perennial manufacturing defects have not been removed despite repeated requests by the complainant. Complainant claims that he suffered a lot and as such, by pleading deficiency in service on the part of Ops, prayer made for directions to Ops to replace the mobile and even pay compensation for mental harassment of Rs.25,000/-..

2.                All the Ops are exparte in this case.

3.                The complainant to prove his case tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex. CA along with documents Ex.C1 to Ex. C14 including Ex. C4A and thereafter his counsel closed evidence.

4.                  Oral arguments addressed and those were heard. Record carefully gone through.

5.                Invoice Ex. C1 produced to show that mobile in question was purchased by complainant for Rs.12,999/- on 10.10.2014 after placement of the order on 07.10.2014. As per para No.6 of the affidavit Ex. CA of the complainant, the defective mobile set is lying in custody of Ops for the past 7 months and same is still lying with them. That assertion in affidavit Ex. CA cannot be termed as incorrect particularly when the copy of email Ex. C9 dated 06.11.2015 establishes that the mobile was deposited for services on 31.08.2015. Perusal of Ex. C6 dated 11.10.2015 reveals that the required parts for the repair were delayed in the shipment. So this evidence produced on the record establishes that despite deposit of the mobile by the complainant with OPs on 31.08.2015, same has not been returned and even the repair of the same has not been done because of delay in receipt of the parts to be replaced. Other email correspondence available on record as Ex. C2 to Ex. C4, Ex. C4/A, Ex. C5, Ex. C7, Ex. C8, Ex. C12, Ex. C11, Ex. C10 establishes that complainant has been lodging protest time and again regarding deficient services. So submission advanced by counsel for complainant certainly has  force that despite efforts by complainant through email correspondence, defects in the mobile deposited with Ops has not been cured. That certainly caused mental agony and harassment to complainant, who is Automobile Engineer qua which the certificates Ex. C13 and Ex. C14 are produced on record. The mobile was purchased on 10.10.2014 and it was deposited on 31.08.2015 and as such the left out warrantee period of three months was there, when the mobile in question was deposited with Ops by complainant. As the repair of the mobile is not done despite the repeated requests by the complainant to Ops and as such, the inference is obvious that the mobile may not been repairable. So certainly complainant entitled for new replaced mobile set in place of old one, which is already lying with Ops.

6.                As a sequel of above discussion, complaint allowed in terms that Ops will hand over a new replaced mobile phone of worth of Rs.12,999/- to complainant within 30 days from date of receipt of copy of order with endorsement of warranty period of three months. Compensation for mental harassment of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only) and litigation expenses of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) more allowed in favour of complainant and against Ops, whose liability held as joint and several. Payment of amount of litigation expenses and costs be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Copies of order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                                       (Param Jit Singh Bewli)                    (G.K. Dhir)

                                       Member                                            President

Announced in Open Forum.

Dated:31.01.2017.

Gobind Ram.