DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

C.C. NO. 13/18

Shri Praveen Yadav

Advocate

Ch. No. G-407, 4^th Floor

Karkardooma Courts, Delhi                                        ….Complainant

Vs.    

1. Motorola

415/2, Motorola Excellance Centre

Mehrauli Gurgaon Road

Sector-14, Gurgaon – 122 007, Haryana     

2. Strength Services Pvt. Ltd.

Certified Moto Authorized Service Centre

‘WA-88, 1^st Floor, Shakarpur, Delhi-110092                    …Opponents

Date of Institution: 15.01.2018

Judgement Reserved on: 08.11.2019

Judgement Passed on: 18.11.2019

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

Order By: Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

JUDGEMENT

           This complaint has been filed by Shri Praveen Yadav against        M/s. Motorola (OP-1) and M/s. Strength Services Pvt. Ltd. (OP-2) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with allegations of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. 

2.        The facts in brief are that on 25.07.2016, the complainant  purchased a mobile Model Moto G Plus 4^th Gen  through Amazon.in (online) vide invoice no. KA=QSAL-156405371-85600 and paid a sum of Rs. 15,039/- online, prior to delivery.

           It was stated that after some time, the mobile created severe problems for which the complainant deposited his handset two times with OP-2, authorized service centre of OP-1, but the problem could not be rectified.  On 08.09.2017, the complainant deposited his handset third time, and that time, OP-2 issued job sheet no. SRCPT0341709080017 and raised a demand of Rs. 10,000/- stating that the warranty period has been expired.  The complainant requested the officials of OP-2 to repair the handset free of cost, but no heed was paid to and they were still demanding illegal and extraneous consideration.     

           It was further stated that as there was manufacturing fault in the mobile, the complainant could not use the said handset and suffered a lot of mental pain and agony.  As there was deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainant has prayed for directions to OPs to replace the mobile in question with a new one or to repair the same free of cost; pay compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards mental agony and pain and         Rs. 22,000/- towards the litigation expenses.  

3.        Notice issued to OP-1 returned with the report that they refused to accept the same.  AR of OP-2 appeared, but did not file the WS and stopped appearing.  Hence, both OPs were proceeded ex-parte.

4.        Complainant have filed rejoinder to the WS of OP-2, wherein he has controverted the pleas taken in the WS and reasserted his pleas.

5.        In support of its case, the complainant have examined himself.  He has deposed on affidavit.  He has narrated the facts which have been stated in the complaint. 

6.        We have heard the complainant and have perused the material placed on record.  From the evidence on record, it is noticed that complainant submitted his handset with M/s. Strength Services Pvt. Ltd. (OP-2) for service on 08.09.2017 and in the service report, it had been stated that “NOT GETTING ON DATA CAN NOT SAVED B/C RETU RN THE CUSTOMER”.  This is the only service report which has been placed on record.  The earlier service reports for the dates mentioned in the complaint have not been brought on the record.  The last service report which is of dated 08.09.2017 show that the handset was out of warranty. 

           No doubt, he has not placed on record the earlier reports, but the fact remains that even in the last report of dated 08.09.2017, the handset was not functioning.  When the handset was not functioning and the complainant have to get the defects rectified within a period of one year from its purchase, it comes out that the handset have not been repaired by M/s. Strength Services Pvt. Ltd. (OP-2) properly.  Thus, there has been deficiency on the part of M/s. Strength Services Pvt. Ltd. (OP-2).  Their being no evidence on record of manufacturing defect, no liability can be fastened on OP-1.  When M/s. Strength Services Pvt. Ltd. (OP-2) have not given their proper services to the complainant, certainly, he has suffered mental pain and suffering for which he has to be compensated.

           In view of the above, we order that M/s. Strength Services Pvt. Ltd. (OP-2) shall repair the handset of the complainant free of cost and giving six months’ warranty from its service.  No compensation on account of mental pain and suffering can be awarded to the complainant as the handset of the complainant was out of warranty.  This order be complied within a period of 30 days.

Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

           File be consigned to Record Room.

(DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                            (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)

       Member                                                                        Member 

(SUKHDEV SINGH)

                   President