DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016
Case No.106/2018
Mr. Sanjiv Gupta
A-1/73, Ground Floor,
Freedom Fighters Enclave, IGNOU Road,
Neb Sarai, New Delhi - 110068
….Complainant
Versus
Motorola MobilityIndia Private Limited,
12th Floor, Tower D,
DLF Cyber Greens, DLF Cyber City,
Gurgaon – 122002
SCS – 001 – Service & Communication Solutions CCI,
A – 180, Sukhdev Nagar, Kotla Mubarakpur,
Bhishma Pitamah Marg, Defence Colony Red Light,
New Delhi
….Opposite Parties
Date of Institution : 04.04.2018
Date of Order : 08.03.2022
Coram:
Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President
Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member
Sh. U.K. Tyagi, Member
ORDER
Member: Sh.U. K. Tyagi
Briefly put, the Complainant has requested to pass an award to repair/replace the jack/charging points; to replace and provide new phone or to refund a sum of Rs.60,000/- towards cost of phone etc; to remit the cost of Rs.15,000/- as legal charges; and to remit cost of Rs.1,50,000/- towards harassment etc.
The facts leading to the case are that the complainant purchased a Motorola Moto G5 Plus handset on 16.03.2017. The copy of invoice is exhibited as Ex.CW-1. The said phone was given with turbo charger and same charger was used for charging the said phone. Around mid February 2018, the said charger was not charging the phone properly. The Complainant went to service centre located at Bhagat Singh Market, CP, SCS-000-1 Pick Solution Private Limited (hereinafter referred as OP-2) and apprised the Service Staff of the problem. The Complaint was lodged with the company (hereinafter referred as OP-1) on 20.02.2018. It is apt to mention here that the phone was well within the warranty period. He was asked to pay Rs.200/- despite it being in warranty period. It was mentioned vividly in job sheet that there is no physical damage. The same is exhibited as Ex.CW-2. It was sent to the Service Centre and on inspection, it was reported that Jack point has been damaged and same is not covered under warranty. The Complainant averred that the part in question is inside the protective metal body and jack is only used to add the charger to the phone and both the parts are product of Motorola only. The service staff mentioned on Job-sheet, the approximate expenses would be Rs.1500/- but after thorough inspection of the phone by the senior technician, the estimate cost was provided as Rs.10,000/- and present value of the said product would also be around Rs.10,000/-. It is also added that charging jack cannot be accessed from outside except with Motorola Charger, hence, it beyond any stretch of imagination that it can be physically damaged. The conduct of service staff and its executive was found to be deficient in service.
Despite the visit to the service centres and various emails, the matter was arbitrarily closed. On escalation of the problem, again the Complainant was instructed to visit representative of Motorola Mobility India Private (hereinafter referred to as OP-3). The OP-3 behaved in same fashion and whimsically stated that the product had physical damage and was beyond repair. Then he was asked to proceed to SCS-001-Service and Communication Solution CCI-Sukhdev Nagar. The complainant visited the said place on 07.03.2018 and was offered 25% discount on the total repair price of Rs.10,000/-. In such compelling circumstances, the Complainant issued the legal notice.
On the other hand, the OP-1 has accepted this fact that the said phone was purchased on 16.03.2017 with one year warranty from the date of purchase. 1st complaint call was logged on 20.02.2018 wherein the Complainant stated that there is some problem in charging. Then the aforesaid phone was checked at authorized service provider of the OP, where, one of the engineers, confirmed the Complainant that charging port to smart phone was damaged and issue was identified as physical damage/customer induced damage (CID) which was not covered under warranty. So he was requested to pay for diagnosis. It has been averred that the charging port is an internal component and damage to it can happen for a variety of reasons. The job-sheet as referred by the Complainant is exhibited CW-‘4’ dated 07.03.2018, it is recorded as “out of warranty” by service provider. It has also been exhorted by OP that without prejudice to warranty clause, the OP offered 50% discount to find a resolution in the matter. It is emphasised by the OP that the mobile handset in question was not sent to any Lab to ascertain the manufactured defect. Since, the service under warranty could not be extended to the smart phone in question which prima-facie was found to be in damaged condition, and repair/ replacement was rightly denied free of cost repair by service centre of OP.
It is also exhorted on the part of OP that to support the manufacture defect, the Complainant should have filed expert advice as provided in the Consumer Protection Act. It was also argued by OP that OP has provided only warranty and not guarantee of the said phone. As per law, product is replaceable only when guarantee card is issued by manufacturing company. If warranty card is issued, then only, defective parts of product is replaceable, if defect occurred during warranty period. It was argued that the damage to the charging port is caused by the Complainant and it is not an inherent manufacturing defect which takes it away from the scope of warranty.
Both the parties have filed affidavits-in-evidence and written submissions. The rejoinder is on record. Oral arguments were heard and concluded.
This Commission has examined all the documents placed on record and pleadings. It was noticed that both the parties accepted this fact that the smart phone/mobile handset in question was in warranty period. First time when the problem was noticed by the Complainant, he visited the Service Centre on 16.03.2018. It was reported to him that jack/charging port was working intermittently; hence, there was a problem. The job-sheet as exhibited at CW-2 is also seen. It is found that “smart phone was in warranty period and no external physical damage is seen”. No repair charges are found written in the said sheet. At later stage, when Complainant got the said set examined at another service centre of OP, he stated that approximate charges were told Rs.1500/- and on further inspection in the same centre, the estimate of repair of Rs.10,000/- was expressed. This fact was not seen in the job-sheet. At this stage, the Complainant accepted this fact that the jack port required repair. Whereas, the OP in its reply clearly states that charging jack port to the smart phone was found damaged and identified as physical damage/Customer Induced Damage (CID). This Commission has looked into this aspect that service charging jack port was not allowing charging, therefore, the smart phone is also not of any use to the Complainant.
In view of the facts and circumstances of this case, the Commission is of the opinion that the OP is not found guilty of deficiency in service. This Commission intends to weigh its decision on the ground of OP taken its reply that the charging jack port to the smart phone was found damaged and the same was identified as physical damage/customer induced damage (CID) by the technician of the OP. Hence, the OP proved its case whereas such technical report was not adduced by the Complainant. Hence, the complaint fails. No order as to cost.
File be consigned to the record room after giving copy of the order to the parties. Order be uploaded on the website.
