Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 134
Instituted on : 24.02.2020
Decided on : 25.11.2024
Srishti d/o Sh. Anil Bhatia R/o # 1049, Gali no. 2, Hafed Road, near Jyoti Prakash School, 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
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT :
1. Brief facts of the case, as per the complainant, are that she had purchased a Mobile Phone, model Motorola-X143ENT, IMEI number: 354143093650901, vide invoice no. FABYQC1900172763 dated 28.12.2018 for Rs.14,999/- through 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 on 8.1.2019and there were defects like heating problem, Audio 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 amounts to deficiency in service. It is prayed that the opposite parties may kindly be directed to replace the mobile phone with new one or to refund the amount of Rs. 14,999/- along with interest and litigation expenses besides any other relief, to which the complainant is found entitled.
2. Notices of the present complaint were issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party No. 1 appeared and filed the written statement. In its written statement, the opposite party No. 1 submitted that in this complaint, the complainant visited to the opposite party’s service center on 18.01.2019 with the aforesaid device with issues of cracking sound in speaker and blur pic in the front camera. The device was checked by technical team of opposite party at the service centre, who replaced the camera and speaker, thereby resolving the concern of the complainant to his contentment. The complainant frequently visited to the opposite party service centre on 14.03.2019 for the issue of battery back up and the camera and speaker were replaced, on 19.03.2019 for non working of touch screen and software was updated and battery was replaced, on 26.03.2019 for issue of chrome housing and complainant was requested to wait for sometime but complainant paid no heed to the request of team at authorized centre of opposite party and the device returned unrepaired to the complainant. On 21.11.2019 complainant visited the service centre for battery back up and swollen battery and the battery was replaced. On 28.01.2020 complainant approached with the issue of damaged touch screen and the touch screen was replaced free of cost. The device of the complainant was repaired every time and proper service was provided by the opposite party. The opposite party never denied any service to the complainant, rather provided the services to his satisfaction and now they are ready to offer its services to the complainant as and when required, on a chargeable basis. 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 being the same not maintainable.
3. However, notice to the opposite party No. 2 was got served through Process Server of this Commission but he failed to appear before this Commission and ultimately, the opposite party No. 2 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 08.08.2022 of this Commission.
4. Learned counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit Ex. CW1/A and documents Ex. C-1 to Ex. C-5 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. R1 and document Ex. R2 in his evidence and closed the same on dated 14.05.2024.
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, the complainant had purchased the mobile in question on dated 28.12.2018 for a sum of Rs.14999/- as is proved from the bill Ex.C4.As per the written statement, first issue in the mobile set was raised on 18.01.2019 regarding device with underlying issues of ‘cracking sound in speaker and blur pic in the front camera’. The action has been taken by the opposite party’s technical team and replaced the camera and speaker and resolved the concern of the complainant. On 19.03.2019 complainant approached the opposite party for non- working of touch screen and this time software was updated and battery was replaced.On 26.03.2019 complainant approached the opposite party for issue of chrome housing and complainant was requested to wait for sometime but he paid no heed to the request of team at authorized centre of opposite party and the device returned unrepaired to the complainant. On 21.11.2019 complainant visited the service centre for battery back up& swollen battery and the battery was replaced. On 28.01.2020 complainant approached with the issue of damaged touch screen and the touch screen was replaced free of cost. Opposite party no.1 has also placed on record Service Orders detail Ex.R2, which shows that the mobile in question was repaired by the opposite party 6 times w.e.f. 18.01.2019 to 28.01.2020. Hence from the alleged service detail and as per the written statement filed by the opposite party No.1, it is itself proved that the defect in the mobile set appeared just within one month of its purchase and the defects could not be removed by the opposite parties despite repeated repairs and replacement of parts. Hence the opposite party no.1 being the manufacturer was liable to replace the mobile set within warranty period but the same was neither replaced nor the price of mobile was refunded by the opposite party despite repeated requests of the complainant. Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party no.1 and opposite party no.1 is liable to compensate 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.14999/- say Rs.15000/-(rounded off)(Rupees fifteen 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. 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
