Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 134.
Instituted on : 18.03.2019.
Decided on : 28.08.2019.
Sunil age 28 years son of Mahendeer Singh, resident of House no.865/34, Vijay Nagar, Rohtak.
.......................Complainant.
Vs.
- Motorola Mobility India Pvt. Ltd., Regd. Office at 5th Floor, Olympia Building 5, 6/1, Bagman tech. Park, C.V.Raman Nagar, Bangluru Karnataka-560093 through its Manager/Authorised person.
- Darshita Aashiyana Pbvt. Ltd. Unit No.1, Khewat/Khata No.373/400, Mustatil no.31, village Taoru, Tehsil Taoru, Distt. Mewat, On Bilaspur, Taour Road, Mewat, Haryana-122105, through its Manager/Authorized person.
- CPT-008-Golden Enterprises, SCF-42, HUDA Complex, Rohtak, through its Prop./Manager/Authorized person.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
DR. RENU CHAUDHARY, MEMBER
Present: Sh.Parveen Sehgal, Advocate for the complainant.
Opposite parties exparte.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that complainant has booked one mobile phone of Motorola company through Amazon and purchased the same from respondent no.1 vide invoice no.HR DEL2-179184911-1819 dated 15.05.2018 and paid Rs.9999/- to respondent no.2. Respondent no.1 provided warranty/guarantee of one year. That OP No.1 is the manufacturer, OP No.2 is supplier and OP No.3 is authorized service centre at Rohtak city. That the mobile phone is not working properly and under warranty period, it remained become defective as touch screen is not working and having other defects therein. That complainant made complaints to the respondent no.3 about the defective mobile phone on 02.02.2019 and 22.02.2019. The official of the OP No.3 on inspection of the mobile phone, told the complainant that there is manufacturing defects in the mobile, which is not curable. That complainant approached to the respondents to replace the said mobile phone or to return back the amount paid by complainant but they refused to accede the request of complainant. That the act of opposite parties is illegal and there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs. As such, it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to replace the mobile phone with new one or to refund the amount of Rs.9999/- along with interest, Rs.20,000/- as compensation and Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses to the complainant as explained in relief clause.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Notice sent to opposite party No. 1 received back delivered as per track report. Notice sent to opposite party No.2 received back with the report of refusal and notice sent to opposite party No.3 received back duly served but none appeared on behalf of opposite parties. As such opposite party No.1 to 3 were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 01.05.2019 of this Forum.
3. Complainant in his evidence has tendered his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C4 and closed his evidence on dated 16.09.2019.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. Perusal of the record reveals that the complainant had purchased the mobile in question on 15.05.2018 for a sum of Rs.9999/- as is proved from the bill Ex.C1. As per complaint and affidavit filed by the complainant, there was defects in the mobile in question, which could not be not removed by the opposite parties despite his repeated requests. To prove his contention, he has placed on record copy of job sheets Ex.C2 dated 02.02.2019 and dated 22.02.2019, as per which there were defects in mobile set like “Touch stuck issue” which appeared within warranty period. The contention of complainant is that thereafter complainant visited the office of opposite parties so many times but neither the defects were removed nor the mobile was replaced. The defect in the mobile appeared within warranty period but the opposite parties have neither repaired the mobile nor replaced the same and also not refunded the price of mobile in question. It is also on record that opposite parties did not appear despite service and as such it is presumed that opposite parties have nothing to say in the matter and all the allegations leveled by the complainant against the opposite parties regarding manufacturing defect in the mobile set stands proved. Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and OP No.1 being manufacturer is liable to refund the price of mobile phone after deduction of 40% depreciation on it, as the complainant has used the mobile phone uninterruptedly for 8 months.
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, complaint is allowed and we hereby direct the opposite party No.1 to refund the price of Rs.9999/- less 40% depreciation i.e. to pay Rs.6000/-(Rupees six thousand only) alongwith interest @ 9% from the date of filing of present complaint i.e.18.03.2019 till its realisation and shall also pay a sum of Rs.3000/-(Rupees three thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.2000/-(Rupees two thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision. However, complainant is directed to hand over the mobile in question at the time of making payment by the opposite party No.1.
7. 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:
28.08.2019.
.....................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Ved Pal Hooda, Member.
……………………………….
Renu Chaudhary, Member
