BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.227 of 2017
Date of Instt. 13.07.2017
Date of Decision: 29.05.2018
Rohit Kaundal son of Sh. Uttam Chand, R/o H. No.A18 BBMB Colony near PAP Lines, Jalandhar.
..........Complainant
Versus
1. Motorola Mobility India Pvt. Ltd, 12th Floor, Tower-D DLF Cyber Greens DLF Cyber City Gurgaon, Haryana 122002.
2. M/s Newrays Enterprises, Authorized Service Centres, SCO #11, Khurana Complex, Krishna Nagar, Nr. Adarash Nagar Gurudwara Canal Road, Adj. Khaira Palace, Jalandhar-144002.
….….. Opposite Parties
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Sh. Karnail Singh (President)
Smt. Harvimal Dogra (Member)
Present: Complainant in person.
Opposite Parties exparte.
Order
Harvimal Dogra (Member)
1. This complaint is filed by the complainant Rohit Kaundal under 'Consumer Protection Act, 1986' against the OPs i.e. Motorola Mobility India Pvt. Ltd. and Others, on the allegations of deficiency of service and unfair trade practice with the prayer that the OPs may be directed to refund the amount of Rs.13,499/- along with interest @ 18% per annum and the OPs may be directed to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of harassment, physical discomfort and financial loss.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is that the OP No.1 is engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling mobile phones and claims their company's product to of a good quality. OP No.2 is running service centre on behalf of the OP No.1 for repair of product of OP No.1. That upon assurance of good quality product by the OP. The complainant had purchased a mobile set having description Moto G Plus, 4th Gen (Black, 32 GB) from Amazon web store through online shopping vide Invoice No.TN-MAA4-167590221-97998 dated 17.10.2016, amounting to Rs.13,499/-. That after purchase of mobile set, the mobile set started giving the problem of touch automatically working and its display touch screen also stopped working. The OP No.1 informed the complainant to contact the service centre i.e. OP No.2 stating that mobile is within warranty period and as such, defect would be removed free of cost. Accordingly, complainant had handed over the mobile handset to OP No.2. The complainant collected mobile phone from OP No.2 upon assurance by OP No.2 that complaint is resolved and phone is working fine. After that complainant again faced the same problem. The complainant again visited OP No.2 for his mobile repair on 30.03.2017. The OP No.2 again collected mobile handset for checking and stated that he will check mobile phone and give the status of phone by 04:00 PM on 30.03.2017. The complainant called OP No.2 at given time, but both mobile numbers of OP No.2 were switched off. The complainant issued a notice to the customer care call centre of OP No.1. The complainant again visited OP No.2 and deposited the mobile phone with OP No.2, after 3 hours the service centre returned the handset to the complainant and stated that his handset problem is not resolved and it cannot be repaired without replacing touch and display. The complainant got SMS from OP No.1 stating that his mobile part has been received at service centre. Then complainant visited OP No.2 on 19.04.2017 to replace his handset touch screen and display, but the OP No.2 stated that part has not came to service centre. OP No.2 denied to replace handset part on that day. So, the complainant deposited the handset and till today the OP has not resolved the problem reported in the mobile phone and the mobile handset is still in the service centre of OP No.2. That this act and conduct of OPs caused great harassment to the complainant, hence the complaint is filed.
3. After the formal admission of the complaint, notice was issued to both the OPs, but despite service both the OPs failed to appear and ultimately, both the OPs were proceeded against exparte.
4. In order to prove his exparte claim, complainant himself tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.CA along with some documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-7 and closed the evidence.
5. We have heard the complainant in person and have also gone through the case file very minutely.
6. After analyzing the whole case, we find that the complainant has purchased a mobile phone from Amazon Web Store through online shopping, vide Invoice No.TN-MAA4-167590221-97998 dated 17.10.2016, which is Ex.C-1. That after the purchase of mobile phone, the touch screen stopped working. The complainant visited the service station i.e. OP No.2 many times. The OP No.2 has stated that handset problem cannot be resolved unless the touch and display of the mobile handset is replaced. The complainant deposited the phone with OP No.2. But OP did not replace touch and display of mobile handset. Though the OP failed to rectify the defect despite depositing the mobile set with the service centre and accordingly, service centre issued two job sheets and its photostat copy are available on the file Ex.C-2 and Ex.C-3, if we go through the said job sheets, then we can say without any hesitation that the defect so described in the said job sheet is also the same as alleged by the complainant in the complaint i.e. “Touch Auto Working” (using time) . The authorized service centre of the OP admitted that there is a defect in the touch auto and when the OP admitted through its authorized centre that there is some defect in the mobile phone, then duty casted upon the OP to resolve the said defect by hook and crook, but in this case, the OP did not bother to replace the touch and display of the mobile handset, which shows that the OP has admitted the fault and then as per settled law, the complainant is not required to get the mobile set mechanically tested from any laboratory for proving the defect in touch auto. So, with these observations, we find that there is inherent manufacturing defect in the mobile handset, which could not be rectified by the OP.
7. Moreover, the OPs showed their inability to repair it, it appears that the present mobile in question is beyond repair. So, in the given facts and circumstances of the case, this Forum finds force in the contention of the complainant and find deficiency in service and negligence on the part of the OPs. Moreover, despite service OPs failed to come forward and evidence led by the complainant remained un-rebutted and un-challenged, for the above reason as stated above.
8. So, accordingly, we observed that the mobile is beyond repair and the complaint of the complainant is partly accepted and the OPs are directed to refund the amount of mobile i.e. Rs.13,499/- alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date of purchase of mobile phone, till realization and OPs are further directed to pay a compensation of Rs.5000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.3000/-. The entire compliance be made within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of order. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
9. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.
Dated Harvimal Dogra Karnail Singh
29.05.2018 Member President
