Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 135
Instituted on : 24.02.2020
Decided on : 25.11.2024
Gulshan Kumar S/o Sh. Surinder Singh R/o # 82/16D, Rajiv Colony, 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, Chhotu ram 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 he has purchased a Mobile Phone, model Motorola-XT1944-5 E-5, IMEI number: 355529091172931, vide invoice no. 20343 dated 13.06.2018 for Rs. 10,000/- from Saini Communication, (Meham) Rohtak. 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, network issues, touch not working, battery burnt 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 of the mobile phone despite repeated requests & visits of the complainant and even after issuance of legal notice dated 26.4.2019 by the complainant. This act and conduct on the part of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it has been prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to replace the mobile phone with new one or to refund the amount of Rs.10,000/- along with interest and litigation expenses to the complainant, besides 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 06.02.2019 with his mobile phone underlying issue of battery, network and non-functioning of touch screen and having experience with issues of audio problem and burning of battery. The technical team of the opposite party after examining the mobile phone concluded that the device did not cover the warranty policy due to burnt of battery as CID (Costumer Induced Damage) is not covered under warranty policy. It is denied that the opposite party 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. The complainant has not placed on record any expert opinion to prove the fact that the product in question had an inherent defect and the fault arose due to some manufacturing defect. The present complaint filed by the complainant is illegal, non maintainable and hence the same is liable to be dismissed. 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.
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 08.08.2022 due to its non-appearance .
4. Learned counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit Ex. CW1/A and documents Ex. C-1 to Ex. C-8 in his evidence and closed the same on dated 17.08.2023. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the opposite party no.1 tendered affidavit Ex. RW1/A and document Ex. R1 in his evidence and closed the same on dated 23.07.2024.
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, as per the complaint, the complainant had purchased the mobile set on 13.06.2018. As per legal notice, the same was purchased on 17.09.2019 and as per invoice Ex.C5 the date of purchase is 17.09.2018. Hence the different dates of purchase are mentioned in all the documents. However, as per bill Ex.C5 the date of purchase is 17.09.2018 and IMEI No. of mobile is 355529091172931 and as per job sheet Ex.C6 and legal notice Ex.C2, the IMEI no. of the mobile is same i.e. 355529091172931. Hence the date of purchase is wrongly mentioned in complaint and legal notice due to clerical mistake and the same will be considered as 17.09.2018 as mentioned in the invoice placed on record as Ex.C5.As per the complainant, the defects appeared in the alleged mobile set and he visited the authorized service centre on 06.02.2019. To prove the same he has placed on record a job sheet Ex.C6, as per which complaint is regarding ‘Power on-off issues’ and the service note is given as : “device dead, on ELS MB or btry burnt”. Meaning thereby, there was defect in the battery of the mobile phone and the same was burnt. As per para no.4 of the written statement, it is submitted by the opposite party that due to burnt battery of the said device, the repair of the device could not be covered under the warranty policy as the CID(Customer Induced Damage) is not covered under the warranty policy. But opposite partyhas not placed on record any document to prove the fact that there was any mishandling or misuse of mobile set on the part of complainant. The complainant had purchased the mobile set on 17.09.2018 and the alleged defect occurred on 06.02.2019 i.e. within 5 months of its purchase. The defect was in the battery of the mobile phone which was provided by the manufacturer and the defectoccurred in the same within warranty period. But despite removing the defects or replacing the battery, opposite party had returned the same to the complainant by taking the plea of ‘Customer Induced Defect’ but the same is not proved on file. Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party 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.10000/-(Rupees ten thousand only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 24.02.2020 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. 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