Haryana

Ambala

CC/322/2015

Raghav Jain - Complainant(s)

Versus

Motorola Mobility India Pvt Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

23 Dec 2016

ORDER

                          BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AMBALA

                                                                   Complaint case no.         : 322 of 2015

                                                                   Date of Institution          : 18.11.2015        

                                                                   Date of decision    : 23.12.2016

 

Raghav Jain son of Sh. Mukesh Jain, resident of house no. 12, Jain Nagar, Ambala City.

……. Complainant.

 

 

1.       Motorola Mobility India Pvt. Ltd. DLF Phase-III Tower-D, 12^th Floor,     Building 7-A, Cyber Green Gurgaon-122002 through its Managing Director.

 

2.       The W.S. Retail Services Pvt. Ltd. Warehouse address No. 42/1 and 43,           KACHERAKANAHALI VILLAGE, Jadigenahalli Hobli, HOSKOTE      TALUK, BANGALORE, Karnataka India -560067 through its Managing     Director.

 

3.       Nanak Telecom, Shop no. 74-75, Ghandi Market, Ambala Cantt. 133001         through its Prop.

 

 ….…. Respondents.

Complaint U/s 12 of the C.P. Act.

 

 

BEFORE:   SH. D.N. ARORA, PRESIDENT

                   SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER                             

 

Present:       Complainant in person

                   Sh. Dheeraj Sachdeva, counsel for the OP no. 2.

                   OP NO. 1 and 3 already proceeded against exparte.

 

ORDER:

                    In nutshell, brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant purchased a Mobile set model G (2^nd Gen) having IMEI                             No. 353325062816487 and 353325062816495 in the sum of Rs. 11749/- on 07.12.2014 from OP no. 2 through Flipkart. It has been submitted that after few months, the said mobile did not work properly and the complainant got checked the mobile set from Op no. 3 Service Centre who repaired the mobile set several times vide job sheets No. NNK/MG/15/00123 dated 15.05.2015, NNK/MG/15/00353 dated 22.08.2015, NNK/MG/15/00393 dated 04.09.2015 and Job Sheet No. NNK/MG/15/00515 but Ops failed to rectify the problem of the mobile in question and the mobile phone again occurred the some problems after repairing by OP no. 3.  Hence, the present complaint.

2                 Upon notice, Op NO. 2 appeared and filed written statement submitting that OP no. 2 is a registered seller on the website “flipkart.com” and sells products of other manufacturers, traders, etc under their respective Trade Marks through the website. Further submitted that there is no dispute between the complainant and the Op no. 2 because it is simply a reseller and as a goodwill gesture the OP no. 2 provides 30 (Thirty) days replacement warranty to its customers and it is an admitted fact that the complainant did not face any problem with the product within these 30 days. Hence, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed.

                   On the other hand, OPs No. 1 and 3 not bothered to appeared despite issuance of notice as such they were proceeded against exprte v.o.d. 22.03.2016.

3                 To prove his version complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure CX along with documents as annexure C-1 and C-2 and close his evidence. To prove his version Op No. 2 tendered his affidavit as Annexure RX and closed his evidence.

4.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the case file.  It is admitted fact that the complainant had purchased the mobile phone in question from OP no. 2 on 07.12.2014 in a sum of Rs. 11749/- (Annexure C-1). Perusal of the contents of the complaint which is supported by affidavit of the complainant that after four months, mobile in question not worked properly within its warranty period of one year inspite of various visits by complainant thus the OPs are negligent in rectifying the problems of mobile set. Although, complainant failed to produce the job card regarding defect in the mobile in question. The version of OP No. 2 that he has only sold the mobile in question to the complainant for a petty commission and he has no concerned whatsoever with the service/repair of the mobile set. Since, OP no. 1 and 3 have been proceeded against exparte and the version of the complainant has not been rebutted by them. Thus, we have no other option except to believe the version complainant. In the interest of justice as well as proper adjudication of the case, We are directed to  Ops no. 1 and 3 to comply with the following directions within thirty days from receipt of copy of the order:-

1. To repair the mobile phone in question in proper working condition without taking any charge from the complainant. However, complainant is directed to deposit the mobile Phone to the OP                 No. 1 & 3 within a week on receipt of copy of the order.

                   Copies of the order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

Announced on : 23.12.2016                                                                  Sd/-

                                                                                                       (D.N. ARORA)

                                                                                                          President

 

                             Sd/-

          (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)

                                                                                                          Member