Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 634
Instituted on : 25/11/2019
Decided on : 25.11.2024.
Ashima Arora d/o Sh. Ashwani Kumar Arora, R/o #200/13, Gohana Road, opposite Mohan Complex, Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Motorola Mobility India Pvt. Ltd. (Manufacturing company) 12th floor, Tower- D, DLF Cyber Greens, DLFCyberCity, Gurugram-122002.
- Golden Enterprises, (Service Centre) Shop No. 3, Bapu Ashram Complex, ChhotuRam Chowk, Rohtak-124001.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT UNDER THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT.
BEFORE: SH. NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR. VIJDENER SINGH, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. ShubhamManchanda, Adv. for the complainant.
Sh. Parmod Kumar, Adv. for the OP no.1.
Opposite party no.2 already exparte.
ORDER
SH. NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT :
1. Brief facts of the case, as per the complainant, are that she had purchased a Mobile Phone, model Motorola-XT1942-2, IMEI number: 354143094007168 , vide invoice no. FABBAC11900371892 dated 29.03.2019 for Rs.13,999/- from Flipkart. The said mobile phone was having one year warranty/guarantee against all manufacturing defects. During the warranty period, the said mobile phone became defective and there were defects like heating problem, Audio problem, internet problem, network issues, volume button malfunctioning etc., due to which the complainant could not enjoy the facilities of said mobile phone. The complainant visited to the opposite party no.2 (service centre) and requested for replacement of said mobile phone but the opposite party no.2 refused to do so. The opposite parties have failed to remove the defect despite repeated requests, visits and even after issuance of legal notice dated 26.04.2019 by the complainant. This act and conduct on the part of the opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it has been prayed that the opposite parties may kindly be directed to replace the mobile phone with new one or to refund the amount of Rs.13,999/- along with interest @24%and litigation expenses to the complainant, beside any other relief, to which the complainant is found entitled.
2. Upon notice, the opposite party No. 1 appeared and filed the written statement. In its written statement, the opposite party No. 1 has submitted that the company deals in Motorola and Lenovo Phone brands and is authorized to manufacture/sell the same. The complainant had visited the authorized service center of the answering opposite party on 23.05.2019 with his mobile phone underlying issue of heating, network, audio and non-functioning of volume button. The said device was checked by tech team of opposite party and concluded that due to the criteria of DON (Date On Arrival), the replacement could not be covered under the warranty period. The device could not be covered under DON criteria that if a costumer failed to bring the mobile phone to the authorized service centre within 7 days from the date when issue arises. The authorized service centre informed to the complainant that he should approach the Flipkart India Pvt. Ltd. for getting the replacement of the said device as the same was liable to replace the defective devices. It is further submitted that the defective device was replaced by the Flipkart India Pvt. Ltd., hence, this complaint is liable to be dismissed. It is denied by the opposite party that they had sold the defective mobile phone to the complainant and failed to remove the defect and further that there was any manufacturing defect in the said device. It is contended that there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No. 1 and the complainant is not entitled for any claim/relief. Accordingly, dismissal of complaint has been sought by the opposite party No. 1 with costs.
3. However, notice to the opposite party No. 2 was got served through Process Server of this Commission, but it failed to appear before the Commission and ultimately, the opposite party No. 2 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 16.08.2022 of this Commission.
4. Learned counsel for the complainanthas tendered affidavit Ex. CW1/A and documents Ex. C-1 to Ex. C-5 in his evidence and closed the same on dated 08.06.2023. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the opposite party no.1 tendered affidavit Ex. RW1/A, document Ex. R1 in his evidence and closed the same on dated 06.11.2023.
5. We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents placed on record and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
6. In the present case, the complainant had purchased the mobile in question on dated 29.03.2019 for a sum of Rs.13999/-. The complainant has wrongly mentioned the IMEI number: 354143094007168 whereas as per job sheet Ex.C4, the IMEI No. is 354143095352696. As per job sheet Ex.C4, complainant had deposited her mobile set with the service center on 18.04.2019 for the problem of ‘Power on-off issues” and the service notes is given as : “battery n display burnt, handset fully burnt”. On the other hand, as per the written statement filed by opposite party No.1, it is submitted that : “Complainant had visited the authorized service center of opposite party on 23.05.2019 with the aforesaid device with underlying issues of heating issues, network issues, audio issues and non-functioning of volume button. It was found that the replacement of the device could not be covered under DON(Date on arrival) Criteria, if the customer fails to bring the mobile phone to the authorized service centre within 7 days from the date when the issue arises”. But, firstly the complainant had approached the service centre on 18.04.2019 and not on 23.05.2019, as is proved from the job sheet Ex.C4. Moreover, in this job sheet the customer complaint is “Power on-off issues” but the servicecenter has given a note that “battery and display burnt, handset fully burnt”. It shows that complainant contacted the service centre for ‘on-off issues’ but the service centrefound that there is manufacturing defect in the mobile set i.e. “battery and display burnt, handset fully burnt”. Meaning thereby, the same was not repairable and required replacement. It is also observed that the defects in the mobile set appeared just within one month of its purchase but the same was not replaced by the opposite parties despite her repeated requests. Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and opposite party no. 1 being the manufacturer is liable to refund the price of mobile set to the complainant.
7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party No.1 to refund the amount of Rs.13999/- say Rs.14000/-(rounded off)(Rupees fourteen thousand only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 25.11.2019 till its realisation. Opposite party No.1 is further directed to pay Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant. Order shall be complied within one month from the date of decision.
8. Application(s) pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
9. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
25.11.2024.
........................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
TriptiPannu, Member.
……………………………….
Vijender Singh, Member
