BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.129 of 2015

Date of Instt. 27.03.2015

Date of Decision :10.08.2015

Sugam Jain son of Anil Kumar Jain R/o House No.ND-186, Fatehpura, Near Tanda Road, Railway Crossing, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant Versus

1. Motorola Mobility India Private Limited, having its Administrative Office:- Motorola Excellence Centre 415/2, Mehrauli, Gurgaon Road, Sector 14, Gurgaon-122001 (Haryana) India through its Managing Director/Principal Officer/Branch Head.

2. WS Retail Service Pvt Ltd, Registered Officer:- Ozone Money Tech Park, No.56/18, B Block, 9th Floor, Garvebhavipalya, Hosur Road, Banglore-560068, Karnataka, India.

3. New Rays Enterprises, (Motorola Authorized Service Centre), through its Proprietor/Partner/Manager/Officer Incharge, SCO-II, Khukhrana Complex, Krishna Nagar, Near Khaira Palace, Jalandhar.

.........Opposite parties

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Sh.RK Kashyap Adv., counsel for complainant.

Sh.Krishan Gopal Bedi, Auth.Rep.of OPs No.1 & 3.

Sh.AS Sohal Adv., counsel for OP No.2.

Order

J.S.Bhatia (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the opposite parties on the averments that the opposite party No.1 is the manufacturer of Motorola Brand Mobile Phones, having its administrative office at Gurgaon (India). Whereas the opposite party No.2, is the wholesale authorized retailer of opposite party No.1 and the opposite party No.3 is the authorized service centre of opposite party No.1, having its service centre, Jalandhar. On the basis of goodwill of Motorola brand mobile phones, prevailing in the market, the complainant purchased Motorola brand handset make Moto E(Black) having IMEI No.35931054262257, vide Tax invoice No.BLR-WFLD201400700991855 dated 23.7.2014 for Rs.6899/-, issued by the opposite party No.2, in favour of the complainant. The handset in question was delivered to the complainant at his residence at Jalandhar on 28.7.2014 through the opposite party No.2. The complainant made a payment of Rs.6899/- vide receipt No.1292874 dated 28.7.2014, at Jalandhar. After opening the sealed box, the handset in question was put to use by the complainant. It is worthwhile to mention that the handset is still covered under warranty period. Soon after the purchase and taking delivery of the handset on 28.7.2014, the handset started malfunctioning, causing unnecessary harassment to the complainant. The main fault which the handset suffered, was with display of the screen. The display got sparked as and when call was received or made. Due to which the complainant could not enjoy trouble-free and uninterrupted functioning of the handset since its purchase. The complainant approached the opposite party No.3 vide job card No.3258, for resolving the problem faced by him, lastly in the second week of February 2015. However, the handset in question was not repaired to the satisfaction of the complainant and the same was returned to him showing inability to rectify the defect of display spark by the opposite party No.3. The opposite party No.3 also demanded Rs.3500/- for repairing the handset in question which was declined by the complainant because the handset is still under warranty period. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite parties to refund the cost of the mobile handset or replace it with new one. He has also claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

2. Upon notice, opposite party No.2 appeared and filed a written reply pleading that the opposite party No.2 is an online reseller and one of the registered sellers on the market place website www.flipkart.com but does not own the website. This opposite party No.2 has acquired good market reputation for its range of products and exceptional customer support. The grievance of the complainant should have been only against the manufacturer as such the product carries manufacturer's warranty. As a reseller, involvement of opposite party No.2 in the entire transaction is very limited only to selling the products of various manufacturers and in the instant complaint manufacturer is opposite party no.2. It denied other material averments of the complainant.

3. The opposite parties No.1 & 3 did not appear inspite of notice and as such they were proceeded against exparte.

4. In support of his complaint, learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CA alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C15 and closed evidence.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 has tendered affidavit Ex.OP2/A and closed evidence.

6. Subsequently, Sh.Krishan Gopal Bedi, Authorized Representative of opposite parties No.1 & 3 appeared and made a statement on 20.7.2015 that they are ready to replace the damaged touch screen free of cost and to give the mobile handset to the complainant in working condition.

7. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the learned counsels for the present parties and further gone through the written arguments submitted on behalf of opposite party No.2.

8. Admittedly, the complainant has purchased the mobile handset in question from opposite party No.2 online. Opposite party No.1 is manufacturer of the mobile handset in question and opposite party No.3 is its service centre. According to the complainant, within warranty period, the mobile handset started malfunctioning and main fault was with display of the screen. However, Sh.Krishan Gopal Bedi, Authorized Representative of opposite parties No.1 & 3 has made a statement that they are ready to replace the damaged touch screen free of cost and to give the mobile handset to complainant in working condition.

9. So in the above circumstances, the present complaint is partly accepted and opposite parties No.1 & 3 are directed to replace the damaged touch screen of the mobile handset of the complainant and give it to him in working condition free of any charges. However, the complainant is granted Rs.2000/- in lump sum on account of compensation and litigation expenses from opposite parties No.1 & 3. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia

10.08.2015 Member Member President