Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/466/2017

Smt. Shakuntla Rani - Complainant(s)

Versus

Motorola Lenovo Company - Opp.Party(s)

Seema Adv.

08 Sep 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	466/2017
Date of Institution	:	15.06.2017
Date of Decision	:	08.09.2017

 

                                       

                                               

Smt.Shakuntla Rani, H.No.3070, Sector 40-D,Chandigarh.

                                ...  Complainant.

Versus

1. Motorola Lenova Company, Sriperambudur, Chennai.
2. Amazon.in (online Service), Amazone Development Centre India Pvt. Ltd., 2^nd Floor, Safina Towers, Opposite of J.P.Techno Park No.3, Ali Asker Road, Banglore-560052.
3. Green Mobiles (The Seller, No.369, Sarathy Roa, Banashankri, 2^nd Stage, Banglore-560070.
4. Motorola Lenova Service Centre, SCO No.26, Sector 20-D,Chandigarh -160020.

…. Opposite Parties.

 

BEFORE:    SHRI RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

SHRI RAVINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

Argued by: Ms.Seema, Advocate for the complainant

                    OPs exparte.

 

PER RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

1.         In brief, the complainant purchased a mobile phone make Moto G Plus, 4^th Gen (Black) sold by the green mobiles on amazon.in on 16.06.2016 for Rs.15,999/- having warranty of one year.  From the very beginning, the mobile handset started giving problems of no clear voice, defective battery, stop functioning on its own and gets switched, response of switch off even when actually it is not. It has been averred that OP No.4 washed the data of the mobile phone in question twice i.e. in the month of November, 2016 and 10.04.2017 to make it functional but the mobile phone is still giving the problems. As such she made a complaint through e-mail to Motorola Store Support Us on 03.05.2017 and her complaint was registered and she was assured that the customer care team would respond to her case but to no effect.  According to the complainant, the OPs have sold a defective mobile handset.  Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
2.         Despite due service through registered post, the Ops No.1, 3 and 4 failed to put in appearance and as a result thereof they were ordered to be proceeded against exparte vide order dated 25.07.2017. Notice sent for the service of OP No.2 was received back with the report of refusal. Since refusal was good service, and none appeared on behalf of OP No.2 on the date fixed, therefore vide order dated 25.07.2017, it was proceeded against exparte. 
3.         We have heard the complainant in person and have gone through the documentary evidence on record.
4.         In her exparte evidence, the complainant has tendered her duly sworn detailed affidavit reiterating the averments as made in the complaint alongwith the documents.  The evidence led by the complainant has also gone unrebutted and uncontroverted as nobody has put in appearance on behalf of the OPs to refute the allegations made in the complaint despite due service.  It can, thus, be concluded without any hesitation that either they admit the claim of the complainant or have nothing to say in the matter.    In our considered view, OPs No.1, 3 and 4 have committed deficiency in service by not rendering the promised services within the warranty period.  We, thus, deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case that no useful purpose would be served by directing OPs  No.1, 3 and 4 to repair the product in question because the consumer had lost faith in that company’s product. If the repaired product develops the defect again then the consumer will be put to much larger harassment because she had to fight another bond of litigation which will be highly torturous for her. 
5.         In view of the above discussion, the present complaint deserves to be allowed and the same is accordingly allowed. OPs  No.1, 3 and 4 are directed as under;-

1. To refund Rs.15,999/- i.e. price of the mobile phone in question to the complainant.
2. To pay Rs.2,500/- to the complainant as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment.
3. To pay Rs.3,500/- as litigation expenses.

6.         This order be complied with by OPs  No.1, 3 and 4 within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amount at Sr.No.(i) and (ii) shall carry interest @9% per annum from the date of this order till actual payment besides payment of litigation costs.
7.         Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

08.09.2017 

Sd/-

(RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER