DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)
Consumer Complaint No. 192 of 2016 Date of institution: 09.04.2016 Date of decision : 08.12.2017
Satinderjit Singh son of Late S. Davinder Singh, resident of # 23, Phase-1, Mohali, Punjab 160055.
……..Complainant
Versus
1. Motorola Mobility India Private Limited, # 415/2, Mehrauli- Gurgaon Road, Sector 14, Gurgaon, Haryana 122001, India.
2. M/s. Sant Rameshwari Enterprises, SCO No.26, First Floor, Sector 20-D, Chandigarh.
………. Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Quorum
Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, Presiding Member.
Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Member
Present: Complainant in person.
None for OP No.1.
OP No.2 ex-parte.
ORDER
By Amrinder Singh Sidhu, Presiding Member.
The complainant has filed the present complaint pleading that he has ordered a Motorola X-play phone from the website namely www.flipkart.co.in from his residence at Mohali in the month of December, 2015 as OP No.1 advertised that its mobile set “Water Repellant. Worry Proof. Water can be a phone’s worst enemy. That’s why Moto X-Play is designed with a water repellant coating to protect it from the inside out.”
2. In the month of February, 2016 the phone was placed on dining table where there was a little water which entered in the device and it can be seen into the display screen of the phone. On the very next day i.e. 29.02.2016, the complainant visited the service centre of OP No.1, operated by OP No.2 for complaining the matter. But OP No.2 denied that the Motorola X-play phone is not a water proof device, so it cannot be repaired on exchanged under manufacturer warranty. The OPs did not resolve the issue despite repeated requests. Lastly, the complainant prayed for refund of payment alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses.
2. After service of notice upon OPs, OP No.1 appeared through Shri Manoj Sharma, authorised representative of OP No.1 whereas OP No.2 did not appear and, therefore, proceeded against ex-parte.
3. OP No.1 filed reply in a casual manner instead of giving parawise reply, OP No.1 stated that they have discussed/confirmed matter with company (Motorola Mobility India Pvt. Ltd.) who have observed that the customer’s handset had issues with the display and when checked it was found a liquid damaged. Customer claims it as water proof handset whereas the handset is water resistant and can resist from water getting in but once entered inside it would cause damage. Further OP No.1 stated that as a good will and to retain and protect the customer’s interest, had offered one time repair without any charges and also 3 months warranty.
4. In order to prove the case, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 and copies of advertisement Ex.C-1; bill Ex.C-2; job sheet Ex.C-3 and e-mail Ex.C-4. OP No.1 failed to tender any evidence despite ample opportunities; hence evidence of OP No.1 was closed by order.
5. We have heard arguments of the complainant. None appeared for OP No.1. It is observed that OP No.1 neither paid cost to the complainant nor filed written arguments. Moreover, none appeared to argue the case on behalf of OP No.1.
6. It is observed that complainant is consumer of the OPs as he has purchased the mobile set ‘X-Play’ from OP No.1 for consideration of Rs.18,499/- which is proved by the complainant vide Ex.C-2 retail invoice bill dated 29.12.2015. This Forum has territorial jurisdiction as the cause of action arose to the complainant within territorial jurisdiction of this Forum where the mobile set got damaged during period of warranty. Moreover, the complainant has purchased the mobile set ‘online’ and it was delivered to him at Mohali and payment of the same is made at Mohali which is also proved vide Ex.C-2 retail invoice bill which states that shipping address is at Mohali. The objection taken by OP No.1 that handset is water resistant and can resist from water getting into it but once entered inside it would cause damage is without any substance because the complainant has specifically mentioned in his complaint that there was little water on the dining table and when he placed his mobile on the table then water entered it and it could have been seen on its screen. The complainant has filed his affidavit to this effect. It clearly proves that the handset is not water resistant as it failed to resist a little water. The OPs failed to rebut the evidence of the complainant in any manner. OP No.1 even did not file affidavit in support of his reply. Moreover, OP No.1 could easily prove that the handset in question was actually water resistant by getting it tested from appropriate laboratory and placing the report on record.
7. In view of above said observation, it is held that the OPs are not only deficient in providing after sale service to the complainant but also guilty of unfair trade practice as they claim that the handset in question is water resistant though actually it is not. So, the OPs are directed to refund the price of mobile handset i.e. Rs.18,499/- (Rs. Eighteen Thousand Four Hundred Ninety Nine only) alongwith lump sum compensation of Rs.15,000/- (Rs. Fifteen Thousand only) for harassment and litigation expenses.
The OPs are further directed to comply with the order of this Forum within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the amount of compensation awarded shall carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of this order till realisation.
The order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Pronounced
Dated: 08.12.2017
(Amrinder Singh Sidhu)
Presiding Member
(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)
Member
