Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 332.
Instituted on : 24.07.2018.
Decided on : 23.12.2019.
Jagbir Singh age 45 years, s/o Sh. Ram Dhan r/o VPO Garhi Sampla Tehsil Sampla, District Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Golden Enterprises/Telecom, 42, HUDA Complex, Rohtak-124001 through authorized person (Earlier known as Swastik Systems).
- Motorola Mobility Private Ltd., 12th floor, DLF Cyber Green, Gurgaon-122001, Haryana, India through authorized person.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. RENU CHAUDHARY, MEMBER.
MS. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.Gulshan Chawla, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.G.K.Lalit, Advocate for the opposite parties.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Present complaint has been filed by the complainant with the averments that complainant had purchased a mobile set namely Moto-Z(Play) bearing IMEI No.358960061499714 for an amount of Rs.26800/- on 24.02.2017. The alleged mobile phone started giving problems with the span of time and complainant visited the authorized service centre of respondent no.2 several times including dated 02.08.2017 regarding charging issue, touch screen not working, overheating of mobile set and display getting blank sometimes, but with no result and they just after making adjustment returned back the mobile set without issuing job card. But the problems could not be removed properly and he again contacted the opposite party on 30.01.2018, 20.02.2018 & 23.02.2018 but the respondent no.1 told that the mobile set could not be repaired and assured to refund the same within 5 days as there has been manufacturing defect in the mobile set. Despite repeated requests of the complainant, neither the mobile set was repaired, nor replaced and the complainant had to purchase a new handset. The act of opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence, this complaint and the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite parties to make the payment of Rs.26800/- alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses as explained in relief clause to the complainant.
2. On notice, opposite parties appeared and filed their written reply submitting therein that it is admitted that complainant visited the respondent no.1 on 30.01.2018 but the mobile set had no defect except for the heating problem reported by the complainant. The complainant again insisted for the change of the mobile set which was not possible as the mobile set had no defect. Further the complainant did not come to collect the mobile set on time. It is denied that there is some manufacturing defect in the mobile set in question. The mobile set in question is working perfectly well and bears no defect. However, the complainant just wanted to get a new handset in return of his old mobile set. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite parties prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
3. Both the parties led evidence in support of their case.
4. Complainant in his evidence tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.3 and closed his evidence on 01.08.2019. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the opposite party parties made a statement that the reply already filed on behalf of OPs be also read in evidence and closed her evidence on 06.09.2019.
5. We have heard the counsel for the parties and have gone through the material aspects of the case very carefully.
6. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that the complainant had purchased the mobile set for Rs.26800/- vide bill Ex.C1 on 24.02.2017 and as per job sheet Ex.C2 dated 02.08.2017 and Ex.C3 dated 30.01.2018 there were problems in the mobile set e.g. “charging, touch screen not working, overheating issue and display getting blank sometimes”. The problems appeared within warranty period, which could not be removed by the opposite parties despite repeated repairs. As such, there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and the complainant is entitled for refund of mobile set after deduction of some depreciation on it as the complainant has used the mobile phone uninterruptedly for 6 months.
7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party no.2 being manufacturer to refund the cost of mobile set after deduction of 20% depreciation on it i.e. to pay Rs.21440/-(Rupees twenty one thousand four hundred and forty only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 24.07.2018 till its realization and also to pay a sum of Rs.3000/-(Rupees three thousand only) as compensation for causing mental agony & harassment and Rs.2000/-(Rupees two thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision. The mobile set in question is already in the possession of service centre.
8. 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:
23.12.2019.
……………………………………..
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
…...........................................
Renu Chaudhary, Member.
..........................................
Tripti Pannu, Member.
