Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 713.
Instituted on : 19.12.2017.
Decided on : 26.10.2018.
Sachin Sumra s/o Sh. Ramphal R/o H.No.446/10 Ram Gopal Colony, Rohtak.
.......................Complainant.
Vs.
- Motorola India Pvt. Ltd., Cyber Greens Tower A-122022, DLF Cyber City DLF Phase No.2 Sector-24 Gurugram.
- Amazon.in, Amiable Electronics Private Limited, Moto G-Plus, 4th Gen(Black, 32 GB).
- Swastic Service Centre, SCF-42, HUDA Complex, Rohtak.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
SMT.SAROJ BALA BOHRA, MEMBER
Present: Complainant in person.
Sh.Sandeep Raj Advocate for opposite party No.2.
Opposite party No.1 & 3 exparte.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that complainant has purchased a mobile phone Moto G4 from the opposite party No.2 for a sum of Rs.8999/- on 10.02.2017. That on 13.11.2017 the mobile phone stopped working and there were problems in screen, battery, charger, power, heating, network etc. That complainant contacted the service centre on 25.11.2017, 07.12.2017 but despite repeated repairs by the service centre, defects could not be removed. That complainant also contacted the company but despite his repeated calls no action was taken by the company. That the act of opposite parties is illegal and there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs. As such, it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to pay an amount of Rs.65000/- towards costs and compensation as explained in relief clause.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party no.2 in its reply has submitted that that OP No.2 act as a facilitator between buyer and seller of the goods and services via the said website which provides an online marketplace platform to sellers to sell their product online to the prospective buyers. That complainant has not bought the product from OP No.2 nor has the complainant paid any amount to the OP No.2 which is an admitted fact. That the alleged complaint pertains to OP No.1 & 3 and OP no.2 has no control over the same and the present complaint merits dismissal qua the OP No.2. Opposite party No.3 in its reply has submitted that complainant contacted the service centre on 25.11.2017 and the phone was replaced after 3 days. Thereafter complainant contacted the OP on 25.09.2011(seems to have wrong date) and told that there was patch on display. The display was replaced and complainant was informed within 5 days about the defects removed by the OPs. That there is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops and dismissal of complaint has been sought. Notice issued to OP No.1 received back served. But none appeared on behalf of OP No.1 and as such OP No.1 vide order dated 19.06.2018 was proceeded against exparte. OP No.3 also did not appear and vide order dated 17.09.2018 of this Forum was proceeded against exparte.
3. Ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C4 and closed his evidence. On the other hand, ld. counsel for the OP No.2 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, document Ex.R1 and closed his evidence.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. Perusal of the record reveals that the complainant had purchased the mobile on 10.02.2017 and as per letter dated 08.12.2017, complainant handed over his mobile to the service centre four times but defects could not be removed. Job sheets Ex.C3/Ex.C4 is also placed on record as per which there was patch on display. On the other hand OP No.1 & 3 i.e. manufacturer and service centre did not appear despite service and as such it is presumed that opposite parties have nothing to say in the matter and all the allegations leveled by the complainant against the opposite parties regarding defect in the mobile set stands proved. Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1 & 3 and they are liable to refund the price of mobile set.
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, complaint is allowed and we hereby direct the opposite party No.1 & 3 jointly and severally to refund the price of mobile set i.e. to pay Rs.8999/- (Rupees eight thousand nine hundred ninety nine only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 19.12.2017 till its realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.2000/-(Rupees two thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision. However, as per statement dated 26.10.2018 of complainant, mobile is already in the possession of service centre.
7. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.
8. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
26.10.2018.
.....................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Ved Pal Hooda, Member.
……………………………….
Saroj Bala Bohra, Member
