Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 86.
Instituted on : 20.02.2018.
Decided on : 06.09.2019.
Aman minor son of Sunil through his mother being natural guardian and next friend Suman w/o Sunil R/o H.No.865/34, Vijay Nagar, Rohtak.
.......................Complainant.
Vs.
- Motorola Mobility India Pvt. Ltd., an existing company incorporated under provisions of the companies Act, 1956 and having their registered office at Motorola Excellence Center, 415/1, Mehrauli Gurgaon Road, Sector-14, Gurgaon, Haryana-122001.
- Swastic Systems Shop No.7 Bapu Asharam Market, Chottu Ram Chowk Rohtak through Manager/proprietor/authorized person/principal officer.
- Shreyansh Retail Pvt. Ltd., Y.No. 696 Gudlapochampally, Secundrabad(Telangana) through Manager/proprietor/authorized person/principal officer.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. RENU CHAUDHARY, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.Parveen Sehgal, Advocate for the complainant.
Opposite parties exparte.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that complainant has booked/purchased one mobile phone through online from respondent no.3 vide invoice dated 08.11.2016 and paid Rs.7999/- to respondent no.3. Respondent no.1 is manufacturer of the said mobile and respondent no.2 is authorized service station. That respondent provided warranty/guarantee of one year of the said mobile. That the mobile phone is not working properly under warranty period and complainant made complaints to the respondent no.1 about the defective mobile phone on 16.03.2017. The same is having several problems and not functioning properly. The official of the respondent no.2 on inspection of said mobile kept the mobile with them and told the complainant to collect the same on next day. That on the next day, after removing temporary defects, opposite party no.2 returned back the said mobile phone to the complainant. But after that mobile phone again become defective and complainant visited to respondent no.2 and respondent no.2 kept the mobile phone in its custody and asked the complainant to come after one week. After that complainant visited a series of time to the respondent no.2 but respondent no.2 never attended the complainant and made lame excuses. Lastly the respondent kept the mobile phone in its custody with the assurance to replace the same by the company, issued a job sheet dated 21.06.2017. Since then the mobile phone is in the custody of respondent no.1 and neither the same is replaced nor the amount has been refunded by the opposite parties so far. 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 replace the mobile phone with new one or to refund the amount of Rs.7999/- along with interest, Rs.20,000/- as compensation and Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses to the complainant as explained in relief clause.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite parties appeared and availed sufficient opportunities to file reply, but failed and also did not appear before this Forum on 02.05.2019. As such, opposite parties were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 02.05.2019 of this Forum.
3. Complainant in his evidence has tendered his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C2 and closed his evidence on dated 06.08.2019.
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 in question on 08.11.2016 for a sum of Rs.7999/- as is proved from the bill Ex.C1. As per complaint and affidavit filed by the complainant, there were defects in the mobile in question, which could not be not removed by the opposite parties despite his repeated requests. To prove his contention, he has placed on record copy of job sheet Ex.C2 dated 21.06.2017, as per which there were defects in mobile set like “Handset not getting charged(No power, can’t boot)” which appeared within warranty period. The contention of complainant is that neither the defects were removed nor the mobile was replaced by the opposite parties within warranty period. It is also on record that opposite parties 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 manufacturing defect in the mobile set stands proved. Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and OP No.1 being manufacturer is liable to refund the price of mobile phone after deduction of 40% depreciation on it, as the complainant has used the mobile phone uninterruptedly for 7 months.
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 Rs.7999/- less 40% depreciation i.e. to pay Rs.4800/-(Rupees four thousand eight hundred only) alongwith interest @ 9% from the date of filing of present complaint i.e.20.02.2018 till its realisation and shall also pay a sum of Rs.2000/-(Rupees two thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.2000/-(Rupees two thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision. The mobile in question is already in the possession of opposite parties.
7. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
06.09.2019..
.....................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
……………………………….
Renu Chaudhary, Member.
