BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.

Dated this the 17^th day of May 2018

Filed on : 01/02/2018

PRESENT:

Shri. Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.

Shri. Sheen Jose, Member.

Smt. Beena Kumari V.K. Member.

CC.No.65/2018

Between

Aswathy Nair, : Complainant

D/o. R. Thulaseedharan Nair, ( By Adv. Mageeja Vimal,

Thulasi Mandiram Pazhangalam, Armour & Sword, Legal

Nallila P.O., Kollam-691 515, Associates, Combara Junction,

Kerala Now res. at Days Ernakulam-18)

Residence Varkey Tower,

Judges Avenue,

RBI Quarters Road,

Kaloor, Ernakulam-682 017.

And

1. Motorola Mobility India Pvt. Ltd., : Opposite parties

12^th Floor, Tower D, (Ex-parte)

DLFCyber Greens,

KLF Cyber City Gurgaon-122 002,

Haryana.

2. Lenovo India Pvt. Ltd.,

No. 4, Vijaya towers, 5^th floor,

Kodambakkam High Road,

Numgambakkam, Chennai-600 034

O R D E R

Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.

1. Complainant’s case

2. The complainant purchased a new moto G plus 4G black phone from the opposite parties on February 14,2017 on payment of
Rs. 13,999/- through an Online Website Amazone India. After 3 months of the purchase, the phone started shooting various troubles and malfunctioning. Therefore, the complainant approached the authorized service centre at Kaloor, Ernakulam to repair the phone. The complaint was informed that the problem is with the touch screen and they will have to get the spare parts from Chennai which would take about 10 days. The complainant had deleted all her personal and private datas and handed it over to the service centre. After 7 days, the phone was returned to her telling that the touch screen issue was resolved. However, when the complainant started using the phone again, the very same issue remaining. When the complainant revisited the service centre, that they would not undertake any warranty cases and she was directed to visit another authorized service centre at M.G. Road, Ernakulam. When she approached the service centre at M.G. Road, she was intimated that the touch screen has to be replaced. Even after 2^nd repairing the phone was showing the very same issues. The complainant came to know that the service centres did not repair the phone properly or the phone had some manufacturing defects. The customer care did not receive the complainant’s queries properly, however, after lot of persuasion the customer service initiated proceedings for replacement of the phone and she got a new phone on 21-12-2017. That phone was also working properly for some times and by the end of December 2017, the phone started switching off automatically. The complainant had undergone lot of mental agony due to the poor service of the opposite party and for having provided her with defective mobile phones. The opposite party had sold defective phone to the complainant which amounted to unfair trade practice. She seeks refund of the cost of the phone along with compensation for mental agony to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- through this complaint.

3. Notices were issued to the opposite parties at Haryana and Chennai. Notices were served on 15-02-2018 and 14-02-2018 by the opposite parties, respectively. However, they did not appear to contest the matter, therefore both opposite parties were set ex-parte.

4. When the matter came up for complainant’s evidence, the complainant filed a proof affidavit and Exbts. A1 to A3 documents were marked.

5. The only question for consideration is as to whether the complainant had proved that there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and if so the reliefs to be granted.

6. Exbt. A1 is the invoice issued by Amazone India on 14-02-2017 . Exbt. A2 is the copy of the job sheet given the service centre at Kaloor, Ernakulam in order to prove that they had repaired the phone . Exbt. A3 is the job sheet given by the service centre at M.G. Road in order to prove that it was repaired in that service centre.

7. On going through the documents, it is seen that the complainant had originally purchased a Moto G phone through the Online portal of Amazone India on 15-02-2017 on payment of Rs. 13,999/- and the phone is having serial No. IMEI xxxxx77939. That phone was entrusted to the service centre of Motorola at Kaloor on 22-09-2017 on the complaint regarding its main display. The phone was ready to delivery on 27-09-2017 and the complainant admits the same. The very same phone was entrusted to a Moto G service centre at Rajaji road Ernakulam on 14-11-2017 . This time the problem was with Power on and off switch. The complainant admitted that she had given a new phone by way of replacement on 21-12-2017 when the phone was showing regular defects. There is nothing in evidence to show that the new substituted phone had any defects so far. No documents have been produced to show that the swapped phone was defective in any respects. We find no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties , in the above circumstances issue is therefore found against the complainant.

8. Resultantly, the complaint stands dismissed as an unfounded complaint. However, we do not propose to award any costs as the opposite parties did not appear.

Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 17^th day of May 2018

Sd/-

Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.

Sd/-

Sheen Jose, Member.

Sd/-

Beena Kumari V.K., Member.

Forwarded/By Order,

Senior Superintendent.

Appendix

Complainant's Exhibits

Exbt. A1 : True copy of final details for

order dt. 14-02-2017

A2 : True copy of moto service record

A3 : True copy of moto service record

Opposite party's exhibits: : Nil

Copy of order despatched on :

By Post: By Hand: