Delhi

North East

CC/88/2017

SUNIL KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

MOTOROLA MOBILITY INDIA PVT. LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

31 Jul 2019

ORDER

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

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

Complaint Case No. 88/17

 

In the matter of:

	Sunil Kumar S/o Harish Chandra R/o B-99 West Jyoti Nagar Enclave, Shahdara Delhi-110094.	Complainant
	Versus
1.                   2.	Motorola Mobility India Pvt Ltd 12th Floor, Tower DLF Cyber Greens DLF Cyber City Gurgaon Haryana-122002 Also at:- Motorola Mobility India Pvt Ltd No.66/1, 7th Floor, Bagmane Techpark, A Block, C.V. Raman Nagar, Banglore-560093   Ipick Solutions Motorola Service Centre Shop No. 202, 115, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Marg, Sector-4, Gole Market,New Delhi-110001.	Opposite Parties

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:      JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:               DATE OF DECISION :

14.03.2017 30.07.2019 31.07.2019

 

N.K. Sharma, President

Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

Order passed by Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

 

ORDER

1. Brief facts as culled out in the present complaint are that the complainant had purchased a brand new Motorola Moto E3 power (Black) 16GB mobile handset manufactured by OP1 through online portal Flipkart by placing order on 05.10.2016, invoice whereof generated on 12.10.2016 for a sum of Rs. 3,999/- against original cost of the handset of Rs. 7,999/- after deduction/adjustment of  Rs. 4,000/- as exchange discount under the scheme / offer that time. The subject handset initially gave good battery backup for a month or so but started giving issues therein mid November 2016 onwards when it would drain off very quickly. The complainant contacted OP1 customer care through e-mails on 17.11.2016 exchanged between them regarding the said problem and was advised to visit their service centre. Accordingly, on advice of OP1, complainant visited OP2 service centre and submitted his handset on 07.12.2016 for resolution of his problem when OP2 issued a service order vide No. SOIN0640001612070009 stating the warranty status ‘in warranty’ with complaint ‘battery draining very fast and data transfer issue’. The complainant has submitted that the handset would not have been considered in warranty had OP2 noticed any liquid damage/physical damage therein. The handset as informed and assured by OP2 of being repaired was returned to the complainant on 08.12.2016 but the problem therein related to battery continued to mar its function on reporting of which by complainant to OP2, the same was again submitted with OP2 for repairs in which period the complainant kept following up the matter with OP1 customer care vide e-mails and on 16.12.2016, the said handset was returned with remarks of battery replacement but without any positive result on its functionality when the complainant started using it thereafter. When the complainant tried to enquire about the status of repair from OP2 representative, he was told that they have changed some internal part of his handset ‘FPL’ but was not given any clarity in this regard. Despite the handset having been opened twice, there was no solution to its battery problem and in this period when complainant was preparing for his Bank P.O. exam, it was immensely painful for him to follow-up with OP2 again and again. Lastly, when complainant went to OP2 on 19.12.2016 to submit his handset for the third time for repairs, a service engineer claimed that his handset was liquid damage, with comments ‘handset is liquid logged, not considerable in warranty’. The complainant told OP2 that it was due to their mal practice that his handset got liquid damaged which they could not deny. Therefore feeling aggrieved at poor after sale service, damaging his handset instead of resolving the battery issue and having failed to provide a properly working handset despite repeated submission, the complainant vide the present complaint has alleged serious deficiency of service, negligence, incompetence and callousness on the part of OPs and has prayed for issuance of directions against the OPs to be held guilty of deficiency of service under Section 2 (1)(g) of CPA and for OPs to either provide a new and replaced handset of the same model against the faulty handset sold or in the alternate refund the price thereof i.e. Rs. 7,999/- alongwith compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for physical and mental agony faced by the complainant due to deficient service of OPs and Rs. 20,000/- as litigation cost.

Complainant has attached copy of retail invoice issued by Shreyash Retail Pvt Ltd (seller) through Flipkart online portal for sale of the handset in question vide order dated 05.10.2016 / invoice dated 12.10.2016 for sum of Rs. 3,999/-, copy of series of e-mails correspondence exchanged between complainant and OP1 customer care between 17.11.2016 till 23.12.2017, duplicate copy of Lenovo Service order dated 07.12.2016 and 16.12.2016 for submission of handset for repairs with remarks of ‘In Warranty’ status and ‘Battery FPL’ and copy of customer information slip issued by Motorola- Lenovo dated 19.12.2016 with comments ‘Handset is Liquid’ and ‘but handset is liquid logged not considerable in warranty’.

2. Notice was issued to the OPs on 30.03.2017 which was served on 10.04.2017. However none appeared on behalf of OPs and they were accordingly ex-parte vide order dated 04.09.2017.
3. Complainant filed ex-parte evidence by way of affidavit and written arguments on 08.01.2018 and 07.05.2018 respectively and on directions issued by this Forum on 19.03.2019 to file certificate under Section 65B of Evidence Act, 1872 for Electronic documents/ e-mails placed on record, complied with the said order on the date instant i.e. today at the time of addressing of oral arguments.
4. We have heard the arguments addressed by the complainant in person and have carefully perused the documents placed on record.

From perusal of e-mails exchanged between complainant and OP1 from November till December 2016, it can be ascertained that no proper resolution to the battery backup issue problem suffered by the complainant was given by OP1 despite having being deposited twice with OP2 while admittedly in warranty without any liquid damage therein and stereo typed perfunctory non committal e-mails were being sent by OP1. OP2 arbitrarily denied repairs of the handset on 19.12.2016 on pretext of liquid damage therein for which the complainant was evidently displeased as can been seen from e-mail dated 19.12.2016 stating that the service centre (OP2) “ruined my phone”.

In the absence of OPs who did not appear or put forth their defence in rebuttal to the allegations leveled by the complainant, we allow the present complaint against the OPs holding them guilty of deficiency of service and direct OP1 and OP2 jointly and severally to refund the price of the handset i.e. Rs. 7,999/-. We further direct both OPs jointly and severally to pay a sum of Rs. 4,000/- as compensation for physical and mental agony and Rs. 3,000/- towards cost of litigation to the complainant.

5. Let the order be complied with by OPs within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.               
6. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
7.  File be consigned to record room.
8.  Announced on 31.07.2019 

 

(N.K. Sharma)     President

(Sonica Mehrotra)  Member