Jammu and Kashmir

Jammu

CC/693/2017

SUMIT KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

MOTOROLA - Opp.Party(s)

ASHWANI GUPTA

24 Oct 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,JAMMU

(Constituted under J&K Consumer Protection Act,1987)

                                                          .

 Case File  No.                   241/DFJ           

 Date of  Institution   :    04-10-2017

 Date of Decision      :     13-10-2018

 

Sumit Kumar,

S/O Sh.Dalip Kumar,

R/O H.No.154/B,Uttam Nagar,

Bye Pass Kunjwani,Jammu.

                                                                                                                    Complainant

            V/S

1.Motorola Software Co.

  6^th Floor Building-H,Righ Wing,

  Auriga Block,Nanenvurg K Raheja IT Park,

High Tech City Madhapujr,Hyderabad-500081.

2.Maa Saraswati Computer/CSR,

   H.No.248-A(Pvt)Ist Floor Gandhi Nagar Jammu-180004.

Gandhi Nagar,Jammu through Incharge/Manager.

3.M/S Flipkart,Khasra No.435,Road No.4.Lal Dora Extension,

   Mahipalpur,New Delhi,India-110037.

                                                                                                                                    Opposite parties

CORAM:-

                  Khalil Choudhary           (Distt.& Sessions Judge) - President

                  Ms.Vijay Angral                                                             - Member

                  Mr.Ghulam Sarwar Chauhan                                     -  Member

 

In the matter of: Complaint under section 10 of J&K Consumer

                              Protection Act 1987.

  

Mr.Ashwani Gupta,Advocate for complainant, present.

Nemo for OPs 1&2.

Mr.Daleep Bhan,Advocate for O3, present.

                                                       

                                                                  ORDER

 

                         Facts relevant for the disposal of complaint on hand are thatcomplainant is said to have purchased Moto-E3 Power handset having IMEI No.(1)-351887081346509,against sale consideration of Rs.7,999/but the handset which was purchased from OP3 had some manufacturing defect which was not disclosed by OP3 to him at the time of purchase. That the handset had the defects of touch not working properly,overheating,misbehaving of cell phone after the installation of third party applications and of random switching off during making and receiving calls and whenever he tried to use internet it hangs and get rebooted thereby causing problems to him. Allegation of complainant is that the handset had developed some manufacturing defect as such, he approached OP2 for repairing of the same, he felt wonder struck when OP2 while receiving the phone issued a job card by mentioning the customer complaint code C0006/Can’t receive calls,C0027-Up grade/inspection request where the fact remains that the handset was purchased by complainant on,05-12-2016 with a manufacturing warranty of one year and registered the complaint on,03-10-2017 was covered in the warranty period(copy of job card is annexed as Annexure-B)Complainant also submits that neither defects have been removed by Ops, nor redressed his grievance, which according to complainant constitutes deficiency in service,therefore,prays for replacement of handset or in the alternative refund of cost of handset to the tune of Rs.7,999/with interest, and in addition, also prays for compensation of Rs.15,000/including litigation charges.

                        On the other hand, OP,1&2, despite notice did not take any action to represent their  case in this Forum, either to admit the claim of complainant or to deny the same within stipulated period, provided under the Act. Thereafter, the right of the OP,1&2 to file reply was closed.

                  Version of OP3 is that it is carrying on the business of sale of goods/manufactured/produced by others and is also registered seller on the website Flipcart.Comand sells products of others through the website.

            Complainant adduced evidence by way of duly sworn her own affidavit and affidavit of Gautam Vaid.The complainant has placed on record copy of retail invoice and  copy of job card.

                 OP3 adduced evidence by way of duly sworn evidence affidavit of Mr.Satyajeet Bhattacharya,Authorised Signatory of Flipkart Internet Pvt.Ltd.

                  We have perused case file and heard L/Cs for the parties at length.

                         To be brief, allegation of complainant is that he purchased handset manufactured by OP1,but within warranty period, handset was marred by defects,however,despite repeated requests,OPs failed to remove  the alleged defects. On the other hand,Op,1&2 despite service of notice, did not choose to defend themselves before the Forum,therefore,their right to file written version was closed.                  

                           In so far as, allegation of complainant regarding defects in the handset are concerned and failure of OP,1&2 to remove alleged defects, same went unchallenged from OP,1&2 side.

                 In support of his allegations, complainant filed his own duly sworn evidence affidavit which is verbatim reproduction of contents of complaint,therefore,need no reiteration. Complainant has also placed on record copy of tax invoice and copy of job card.            

               On the other hand, OP,1&2 despite being duly served, failed to take any action to represent their case in this Forum, either to admit the claim of the complainant or to deny it, so there is no reply filed by OP, 1&2 in this complaint and there is also no evidence to rebut the case of the complainant. The present case of the complainant is covered by Section 11 (2) (b) (ii)of the Consumer Protection Act,1987, which provides that in a case where the Op1 omits or fails to take any action to represent their case within the time given by Forum, in that situation the Forum shall settle the consumer dispute on the basis of evidence brought to its notice by the complainant. Sub-Clause (ii) of the Section 11, of Act of 1987, clearly, provides that when OP, 1&2 omits or fails to take any action to represent their case before the Forum, the dispute has still to be decided on the basis of the evidence brought to its notice by the complainant.

                      From perusal of the documentary evidence and affidavits filed by complainant, it is found that complainant has succeeded in proving his case, against OP 1&2 despite making repeated requests, therefore, a case is made out by complainant for deficiency in service on the part of OP 1&2,in not redressing his grievance.

                  Therefore, in view of aforesaid discussion, we are of the opinion that the complainant has succeeded in proving deficiency in service on the part of OP 1&2,as such,OP 1&2 are directed to refund cost of handset to the tune of Rs.7,999/.-to the complainant, who in turn returned the handset with all accessories to OPs. OP1&2 are further directed to pay Rs.5,000/-as compensation for mental agony and harassment and litigation charges of Rs.5000/-to the complainant. The awarded amount be deposited in this Forum within one month from the date of receipt of this order. The complaint is accordingly disposed of and file be consigned to records after its due compilation.

Announced                                                 (Khalil Choudhary)                                        

 13-10-2018                                                (Distt.& Sessions Judge)

 Agreed by                                                      President                                                      

                                                                       (District Consumer Fourm)

Ms.Vijay Angral                                                 Jammu.

Member

 

Mr.Ghulam Sarwar Chauhan

Member