Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 11.
Instituted on : 04.01.2018.
Decided on : 26.10.2018.
Rohit Phougat s/o Sh. Yogender Singh R/o VPO Bhalout, Distt. Rohtak-124401. age-22 yrs., Ph. No.9812011590.
.......................Complainant.
Vs.
- Manager, Motorola Mobility India Pvt. Ltd., 12th Floor, Tower-D, DLF Cyber City, Gurugram-122002.
- Manager, Swastik Service Centre, SCF-42, HUDA Complex, Rohtak.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
SMT.SAROJ BALA BOHRA, MEMBER
Present: Sh.Digvijay Advocate for the complainant.
Opposite parties exparte.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that complainant has purchased a mobile phone Motorola Play on dated 27.02.2017 for a sum of Rs.26000/-. That at the time of purchase, it was told that the screen was unbreakable. That there was problem in the mobile set from the very beginning and the phone started heat up. That the complainant contacted the opposite parties and the opposite party only formatted the mobile and returned to the complainant and many times did not provide any job sheet. That on 20.11.2017 same problem appeared and the complainant contacted OP No.1 and OP No.1 changed the display on the plea that the display was broken whereas as per company’s promise, the display was unbreakable. That opposite party also charged Rs.5997/- from the complainant whereas the phone was within warranty period. That same problems appeared again which could not be removed by the OPs on the ground that the phone was out of warranty. 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 pay an amount of Rs.26000/- towards cost of mobile, Rs.5997/- charged from the complainant and also to pay compensation and litigation expenses as explained in relief clause.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Notice issued to OP No.1 through registered post not received back either served or unserved and OP no.2 also did not appeared despite service. As such OP No.1 vide order dated 19.02.2018 and OP No.2 vide order dated 27.08.2018 respectively were proceeded against exparte.
3. Ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C4 and closed his evidence.
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 on 27.02.2017 and as per job sheet Ex.C2 dated 20.11.2017, there were problem of Cracked Display/Lens and the mobile was within warranty period. But as per bill Ex.C3 opposite party No.2 has charged Rs.5597/- from the complainant on account of display and repair charges whereas as per document Mark-A placed on record by the complainant, the mobile glass was ‘unbreakable’. As per job sheet Ex.C4 OPs has shown the mobile out of warranty whereas the mobile was within warranty period. On the other hand OP No.1 & 2 i.e. manufacturer and service centre 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 defect in the mobile set and charging of 5997/- from the complainant stands proved. Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1 being manufacturer and OP No.1 is liable to refund the price of mobile set.
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 mobile set i.e. to pay Rs.26000/-(Rupees twenty six thousand only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 04.01.2018 till its realization and shall also refund the amount of Rs.5597/-(Rupees five thousand five hundred ninety seven only) charged from the complainant and also to pay a sum of 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 set in question to the OPs at the time of payment by the opposite parties.
7. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.
8. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
26.10.2018.
.....................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Ved Pal Hooda, Member.
……………………………….
Saroj Bala Bohra, Member
