DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, NORTH-WEST
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
CSC-BLOCK-C, POCKET-C, SHALIMAR BAGH, DELHI-110088.
CC No: 838/2017
D.No._______________________ Dated: __________________
IN THE MATTER OF:
ASHOK MITTAL,
S/o LATE SH. PRAKASH CHAND,
R/o B-35, AMAN APARTMENTS,
SECTOR-13, ROHINI, DELHI-110085.… COMPLAINANT
Versus
1. MOTOROLLA INDIA PVT. LTD.,
415/2, MOTOROLLA EXCELLENCE CENTRE,
SEC-14, MEHRAULI GURGAON ROAD,
GURGAON-122001.
2. MAX MOBILE CARE
SHOP No. 56-57,
AGARWAL CITY MALL,
PITAMPURA, DELHI-110036.… OPPOSITE PARTY(IES)
CORAM:SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT
SH. BARIQ AHMED, MEMBER
MS. USHA KHANNA, MEMBER
Date of Institution: 20.09.2017
Date of decision:18.10.2019
SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT
ORDER
1. The complainant has filed the present complaint against OPs underthe Consumer Protection Act, 1986 therebyalleging that the complainant purchased mobile handset from the OP-2 and the
CC No.838/2017 Page 1 of 6
handset was not working properly from the initial days of the use and the complainant asked OP to replace it, however, OP insisted that the complainant should visit OP-2 for examination of the mobile handset and the complainant had no other option but to visit OP-2 with defective piece. The complainant further alleged that the complainant visited OP-2 who asked the complainant to leave the mobile handset as it will require the check up and it may take time and the complainant has no other option to do as asked and note in today’s world the mobile handset is not a simple talking device but more than by which a lot of works related to the profession and personal life can be done and specially for a lawyer the mobile phone acts as assistant and therefore in the absence of a mobile device the complainant had become work handicap. The complainant further alleged that apart from leaving his mobile handset with OP-2, the complainant had also sent an e-mail to OP telling the true story, however, instead of redressing the grievances of the complainant, OP asked the complainant to visit the same service centre again and waiting for a considerable time when the complainant visited OP-2 he was informed that the mobile handset is still not ready and the complainant was totally shocked and was not ready for such predicament but no other option and the complainant was regularly in touch with OP through electronic communication. The complainant further alleged that it was not an isolated occasion for
CC No.838/2017 Page 2 of 6
the complainant to visit OP-2 and the mobile handset as purchased by the complainant was defective piece can be proved by simple fact that the said piece remained with OP than the original buyer i.e. the complainant and a list of the various visits of the complainant and time duration of mobile handset kept with OP-2 as on 29.10.2016 to 17.11.2016, 31.03.2017 to 29.04.2017, 03.06.2017 to 03.06.2017, 05.06.2017 to 27.06.2017, 18.03.2017 & 13.08.2017 no service. Thereafter, when the complainant was not able to use the mobile handset and the complainant no other option but purchase another new mobile handset to cater his needs and all this happened due to the callous and unprofessional attitude of OP and the complainant accordingly 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 pay Rs.14,999/- being the cost of the mobile handset and Rs.12,999/- for the cost of new mobile handset as purchased by the complainant alongwith interest @ 24% p.a. aswell as compensation for causing him mental agony and harassment.
3. Notice to OPs were issued through speed post for appearance on 21.12.2017 and the notice to OPs were served on 12.10.2017 as per track reports but none have appeared on behalf of OPs and as such OPs were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 21.12.2017.
4. In order to prove his case, the complainant filed his affidavit in evidence and also filed written arguments. The complainant also
CC No.838/2017 Page 3 of 6
placed on record copy of tax invoice no. KA-QSAN-167590221- 262364 dated 28.08.2016 for purchase of MOTO G Plus 4th Gen (Black, 32 GB) for a total value of Rs.15,039/- issued by Amazon.in, copy of tax invoice/bill no. F0YQK03117-00779853 dated 25.02.2017 for purchasing Lenovo K-6 Power (Dark Grey, 32GB) for a sum of Rs.10,999/- issued by Flipkart, copies of service notes 29.10.2016 issued by B2X the customer care company, copy of Swap Document dated 17.11.2016, copies of Customer Information Slips dated 01.03.2017 & 03.06.2017 issued by Lenovo, copies of Moto Service Report dated 31.03.2017 & 05.06.2017 issued by Motorola service centre and copy of e-mail communication between the parties.
5.This forum has considered the case of the complainant in the light of evidence and documents placed on record by the complainant. 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, OPs have kept mum and have not bothered to answer the case of the complainant.
6.On perusal of the record, we find that the complainant made complaint of his mobile to the service center of OP-2 within warranty period. As such OPs ought not to refuse to repair the mobile handset within the warrantee period free of cost. It was the duty of the OPs to rectify the defect or to replace the product. Acustomer/consumer is
CC No.838/2017 Page 4 of 6
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-1 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 8 months.
7. Accordingly, OP-1 is directed as under:
i) To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.14,999/- being the price of the mobile handset on return of disputed mobile handset, if not returned earlier alongwith accessories, original invoice and job sheets.
ii) To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.10,000/- ascompensationtowards mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant.
iii) To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.3,000/- towards cost of litigation.
8. The above amount shall be paid by OP-1to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receiving copy of this order failing which OP-1shall be liable to pay interest on the entire awarded amount @ 10% per annum from the date of receiving copy of this order till the date of payment. If OP-1 fails to comply with the order within30 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.
CC No.838/2017 Page 5 of 6
9. 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 18th day of October, 2019.
BARIQ AHMED USHA KHANNA M.K. GUPTA
(MEMBER) (MEMBER) (PRESIDENT)
CC No.838/2017 Page 6 of 6
