DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                                                                   Complaint no. 641                                                                                        

                                                                   Instituted on:   02.11.2016                                                                                   

                                                                   Decided on:    20.03.2017

Sahil Chauhan aged 21 years son of Satwinder Chauhan, resident of H. No361, Magzine Street, Sangrur Punjab.     

                                                …. Complainant

                                                        Versus

1.     Motorola Mobility India Private Limited 12th floor Tower D, DLF Cyber Greens, DLF Cyber City, Gurgaon, Haryana-122002 through authorized signatory.

2.   Image Services, Shop No.74-75, Chotti Baradari, Near Roop Gas Agency Patiala.

3.   Amazon India, Brigade Gateway, 8th Floor, 26/1 Dr. Raj Kumar Road, Malleshwaram (W), Bangalore-560055, Karnataka, India.

                                                  ….Opposite parties.

FOR THE COMPLAINANT     :      In person.                           

FOR OPP. PARTY NO.1          :      Shri  Sukhdeep SinghA/A                         

FOR OPP. PARTY No.2           :       Exparte.

FOR OPP. PARTY NO.3          :      Shri  P.S.Sidhu,  Advocate                         

Quorum

                    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

Sarita Garg, Member

ORDER:  

Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

1.             Sahil Chauhan, complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that he purchased a Motorola Moto G4 Plus mobile set of OP no.1 from OP No.3 for an amount of Rs.14999/- vide invoice dated 22.06.2016.   After one month of its purchase,  the mobile set in question started giving  problem  of shut down automatically and has to again restart for which the complainant approached the OP No.2 who kept the phone with it and gave it back after installing operating system again. Thereafter it again started giving same problem for which  the complainant again approached OP no.2 but the problem persisted. Then the complainant again approached OP no. 2  on 16.08.2016 and OP no.2 kept the mobile set with him  and issued a job sheet.  After 23 days i.e. September 7, 2016  the complainant received his cell phone from OP no.2 . The mother board of the phone was changed but no copy of motherboard was provided.  After 3/4 days  the phone again started giving same problem and  complainant was told to deposit the phone  but refused to do so as it was the fourth incident  when the phone was going for repair in 3 months.  Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainant has sought following reliefs:-

i)      OPs be directed to refund the amount of Rs.14999/-  as price of cell phone  along with interest @18% per annum from the date of purchase till  realization,

ii)     OPs be directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.20000/- as compensation   on account of mental agony, harassment and Rs.20000/- on account of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice,

iii)   OPs be directed to pay Rs.10000/- as litigation expenses.

2.             Notices were issued to the OPs but despite service OP no.2 did not appear and as such OP no.2  was proceeded exparte.

3.             In reply filed by OP No.1, it is submitted that customer's handset had auto off issues with the handset was repaired by replacing the motherboard and repaired the handset  as per customer satisfaction, however customer claims that handset was not repaired for more than an month where the handset was repaired in 18 days and customer has approached the Forum for not providing the service, Now, as a goodwill and to retain and protest the customer's interest we are ready to settle  the case out of the court with  offers i.e.  free of cost repair with three months of warranty extension, replacement with same model and replacement  with ungrade model Moto X play. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1.

4.             In reply filed by the OP no.3, it is submitted that the complainant has not bought any goods directly from the OP no.3 nor has the complainant paid any amount/ consideration directly to OP no.3 against any such goods or services.  The mobile phone has been bought by the complainant from the seller from the Website operated by the OP no.3 and hence the complainant does not fall within the definition of "consumer" vis a vis the OP no.3. It is further submitted that the complainant has never approached the OP no.3 in respect to any of the alleged grievances as alleged in the instant complaint.

5.             The complainant in his evidence has tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-10 and closed evidence. On the other hand, OPs No.1 and3 have tendered an affidavit Ex.OP1/1, Ex.OP3/1 to Ex.OPW3/2 and closed evidence.   

6.             Without touching the merit of the case, first of all we perused the written statement of the OP no.1 and find that the OP no.1 is ready to settle the case of the complainant with offers i.e.  free of cost repair with three months of warranty extension, replacement with same model and replacement with upgrade model Moto X play.  Hence, we feel that there is no need to go on merit of the case on this point as the OP no.1 is already  ready to replace the mobile set of the complainant  with a new one or  replacement with upgrade model Moto X play. 

7.             Now, the only question which remains for determination is regarding compensation on account of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  The complainant has purchased the said mobile set on 22.06.2016 and after one month of its purchase it started giving problems for which he approached OPs so many times but they failed to remove the defect in the mobile set in question  which clearly shows  that the complainant suffered a lot of mental pain agony and harassment. Hence, we feel that it would be reasonable if the OPs are directed to pay a consolidated amount of compensation of Rs.5000/- on account of mental pain, agony, harassment and litigation expenses.    

8.             For the reasons recorded above, we allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the OPs  to replace the mobile set in question with new one  or in the alternative to refund the price amount of the mobile set in question i.e. Rs.14999/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of purchase till realization. We further order the OPs to pay to the complainant consolidated amount of compensation of Rs.5000/- on account of mental pain, agony and harassment and litigation expenses.

9.             This order of ours shall be complied with  within 30 days from the receipt of copy of the order.  Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course.                   Announced

                March 20, 2017

                                                           (Sarita Garg)                    (Sukhpal Singh Gill)                                                                                                                                               Member                                    President