BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

                                                          Complaint No:  507 of 13.07.2016.                                                            Date of Decision: 20.09.2016.

Harpreet Singh aged 25 years son of Sh. Amarjit Singh, resident of H. No.349, Phase-I, Urban Estate, Dugri, Near Police Station, Ludhiana.

..… Complainant

                                                Versus

1. Motorola Customer Service Head, Motorola Marketing India Private Limited, C/o. 12^th Floor, Tower-D, DLF Cyber Green, DLF Cyber City, Gurgaon-142002 through its Chairman/authorized person.
2. Flip Kart.com, c/o. No.447/C, 1^st Floor, 1/A12 Main, Opp. BSNL Telephone Exchange, 4^th Block, Kokoramangie, Bangalore-560034 through its Chairman/Authorized person.
3. Cell Tech India, Authorized Service Center, C/o. 24-A, Surya Shopping Complex, National Road, Bhai Wala Chowk, Ludhiana, through its Proprietor/Chairman/Authorized person.

…..Opposite parties 

                                      Complaint under the Provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM:

SH. G.K. DHIR, PRESIDENT

MS. VINOD BALA, MEMBER

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant            :         Ms. Indu Bala, Advocate.

For OP1                         :         Sh. Sunil Kumar, Representative

For OP2                         :         Sh. Kulwinder Singh, Advocate.

ORDER

PER G.K. Dhir, PRESIDENT

1.                Sh. Sunil Kumar Verma, representative of OP1 produced authority letter and even suffered statement that OP1 is ready to refund the price amount of mobile set in question namely Rs.12,999/- within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Authority letter has been produced on record as Ex. R1 to show that Sh. Sunil Kumar Verma is authorized to suffer statement on behalf of OP1. This Sunil Kumar further suffered statement that old mobile set is already with service centre of OP1. Ms. Indu Bala, Advocate for complainant suffered that complainant is ready to accept Rs.14,000/- in full and final satisfaction of the claim put forth by the complainant through complaint. Further she has suffered statement that no evidence to be led by complainant. Complaint may be disposed of accordingly. Counsel for complainant also suffered statement that complainant will not claim old mobile set in case Rs.14,000/- paid.

2.                In view of those recorded statements, it is obvious that virtually compromise has been arrived at between the parties, but dispute remains as to whether compensation for mental harassment also to be granted or not. Undisputedly, price of the purchased mobile set is Rs.12,999/-. Copy of the retail invoice bill in that respect has already been produced. Copy of job cards dated 12.01.2016, 25.05.2016 along with email record has been produced to show that complainant was somewhat harassed  due to network problem in the mobile set. For that harassment, some compensation at least should be granted and as such, compensation of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) will be sufficient. This compensation of Rs.1,000/- will be in addition to the refund of amount of Rs.12,999/-.

3.                Keeping in view the statement suffered by representative of OP1 as well as counsel for complainant and above discussion, this complaint allowed in terms that OP1 will pay Rs.14,000/- (Rupees Fourteen Thousand only) in all to complainant in full and final satisfaction of the claim put forth through this complaint.  Payment of that amount of Rs.14,000/- will be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Further it is ordered that complainant will not claim old mobile set after receipt of Rs.14,000/-. No order as to costs. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

                                       (Vinod Bala)                   (G.K. Dhir)

                                       Member                           President

Announced in Open Forum.

Dated:20.09.2016.

Gobind Ram.

Harpreet Singh vs. Motorola            CC/16/507

Present:       Ms.Indu Bala, Advocate for complainant.                                                 Sh.Sunil Kumar, representative for OP1.                                                        Sh.Kulwinder Singh, Advocate for OP2.

                   Sh.Sunil Kumar, representative for the complainant suffered statement that company ready to refund the price amount of the mobile set in question amounting to Rs.12,900/- within 30 days. Old mobile set alleged to be already with the service centre of company as per that recorded statement. No evidence to be led as per statement of that representative. Ms.Indu Bala, Advocate for complainant suffered statement that complainant ready to accept Rs.14,000/- in all in full and final satisfaction of the claim put forth through this complaint and no evidence to be led. Further as per that recorded statement of counsel for complainant that the complainant will not claim old mobile set, in case Rs.14,000/- paid . As no evidence to be lead and matter can be decided without adducing evidence and as such, after hearing arguments, complaint allowed through separate detailed order today by directing OP1 to pay Rs.14,000/- (Rupees Fourteen Thousand only) in all to complainant in full and final satisfaction of the claim put forth through this complaint. Payment of that amount of Rs.14,000/- will be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Further it is ordered that complainant will not claim old mobile set after receipt of Rs.14,000/-. No order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

                                       (Vinod Bala)                   (G.K. Dhir)

                                       Member                           President

                                                                                20.09.2016