DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

Complaint Case No. 313/22

In the matter of:

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

ORDER

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

The Complainant filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that on 13.10.2020, Complainant had purchased a Motorola Razr 5G phone through online shopping for a sum of Rs. 1,25,000/-. Complainant stated that from the date of purchase of the said phone he had faced issue and the said phone was under the warranty period. Complainant stated that he raised the issue with the customer service and in this regard Opposite Party had sent a technician. The technician inspected the said phone and informed the Complainant that the display of the phone was not working and they had to replace the display. Complainant stated that Opposite Party had informed that the Complainant had to pay Rs. 50,000/- for the same in spite of the fact that the said phone was under warranty. Complainant also stated that the said issue in the phone came after around 10 months of use. Complainant stated that he went to service centre of Opposite Party then instead of repairing the said phone under warranty they said that it would be repaired on chargeable basis. Complainant stated that he had several times tried to contact the Opposite Party customer service but he had not received any constructive reply. Complainant stated that he several times contacted the Opposite Party but they had not yet resolved the issue of the phone. A legal notice dated 26.11.2021 was sent to the Opposite Party but they did not give any reply. Hence, this shows the deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Party. Complainant has prayed to refund back the amount of the phone i.e. Rs. 1,25,000/- and an amount of      Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of mental harassment.

Case of the Opposite Party

2. The Opposite Party contested the case and filed its written statement. It is stated that the complaint is without any merit. It is admitted that the Complainant has purchased the mobile phone in question which was manufactured by it. It is admitted that the Complainant visited the authorized service centre of the Opposite Party. The technician of the Opposite Party examined the mobile phone and found that due to the physical damage in the mobile phone and underlying dents on the upper chrome side which was followed by a damage in the charging jack. It was also found that there were hard scratches on the touchscreen of the mobile phone. It is alleged that all this happened due to the negligent use of the mobile phone by the Complainant. Therefore, the mobile phone in question was not covered under the warranty policy. It is prayed that the complaint may be dismissed. 

Rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party

3. The Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party, wherein the Complainant has denied the pleas raised by the Opposite Party and has reiterated the assertions made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Complainant

4. The Complainant in support of his complaint filed his evidence by way of affidavit wherein he has supported the averments made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Opposite Party

5. In order to prove its case, Opposite Party has filed affidavit of  Mr. Gunasheelan Paneer, wherein the averments made in the written statement of Opposite Party have been supported.

Arguments & Conclusion

6. We have heard the Complainant and Ld. Counsel for the Opposite Party. We have also perused the file and the written arguments filed by the Complainant and Opposite Party. The case of the Complainant is that he has purchased a mobile phone and the said mobile phone was manufactured by the Opposite Party. His case is that during the warranty period the mobile phone was giving troubles in functioning and so he approached the service centre of the Opposite Party. He was told by the technician that the said mobile phone can be repaired on payment of Rs. 50,000/- by the Complainant. On the other hand, the case of the Opposite Party is that the problem in the mobile phone was due to the negligent and rough use of the mobile phone by the Complainant and therefore it could not be repaired under the warranty.
7. Now the question is that whether the problem in the said mobile phone surfaced due to the negligent use of the mobile phone by the Complainant. The Opposite Party has filed the affidavit of Sh. Gunasheelan Panner. He has stated in affidavit that the team of the authorized service centre found that the device had certain dent on the upper chrome side followed by a damage on the charging jack side coupled with hard scratches on the touchscreen of the said device. It is also stated that this happened due to the negligent use of the mobile phone by the Complainant. It is important to note that the Opposite Party did not file any report of the said experts in order to substantiate its defense that the problem in the mobile phone occurred due to the negligent use of the mobile phone by the Complainant. Nor the affidavit of any person who had inspected the mobile phone has been filed. Therefore, the defense of the Opposite Party cannot be believed. Admittedly, the mobile phone in question was manufactured by the Opposite Party and there was problem in the said mobile phone and the same was not rectified by the Opposite Party.
8. In view of the above discussion, it is proved that there is deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Party. Therefore, the complaint is allowed. The Opposite Party is directed to pay the cost of the mobile phone i.e. Rs. 1,16,020/- (as mentioned in the tax invoice Annexure B) to the Complainant  along with interest @ 9 % p.a. from the date of filing the complaint till recovery. The Complainant shall handover the mobile phone in question to the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party is also directed to pay an amount of Rs. 25,000/- on account of mental harassment and litigation expenses to the Complainant along with interest @ 9 % p.a. from the date of this order till recovery. 
9. Order announced on 23.04.2024.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room.