BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)

                                  Consumer Complaint No.405 of 2015

                                 Date of institution:          12.08.2015

                                              Date of Decision:            10.05.2016

Prithvijit Singh son of Kewaljit Singh resident of # 222, Tower 11, Motia Heights, Near Gurudwara Baul Sahib, Dhakoli, Zirakpur, Tehsil Dera Bassi, District SAS Nagar (Mohali).

                                        ……..Complainant

                                        Versus

1.     M/s. Flipkart, WS Retail Services Pvt. Ltd. Ozoune Manay Tech Park No.56/18, B Block, 9^th Floor, Gayvebhavipalya Hosur Road, Bangalore, Karnataka 560068 through its authorised person/Manager.

        2^nd Address:

        M/s. Flipkart India Pvt. Ltd. No.42/1&, 43, Macherakanahalli, Village Jadigenahlli, Hobli, Hoskote, Taluka Bangaluru 560067 through its authorised person/Manager.

2.     M/s. Motorla, K. Raheja, I T Park, Hi Tech City, Madhapur, Hyderabad through its authorised person/Manager.

                                                              ………. Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

CORAM

Mrs. Madhu. P. Singh, President.

Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, Member.

Mrs. R.K. Aulakh, Member.

Present:    Complainant in person.

                Shri Amit Mahajan, counsel for OP No.1.

None for OP No.2.

(Mrs. Madhu P. Singh, President)

ORDER

                The complainant has filed the present complaint seeking following direction to the Opposite Parties (for short ‘the OPs’) to:

1. Replace the mobile of the complainant with a new mobile or in the alternative to refund the price of mobile phone to the tune of Rs.10,999/-.

2. Pay to the complainant Rs.50,000/- for mental agony and torture.

3. to pay to the complainant Rs.20,000/-  for not enjoying the mobile.

(d)    to pay to the complainant Rs.21,000/- as costs of litigation.

                The complainant purchased a new Motorola Mobile XT1068 (Moto-G) 2^nd Generation (Duel Sim) from OP No.1 through online vide invoice dated 25.05.2015 for a sale consideration of Rs.10,999/-. At the time of purchase, OP No.1 had given one year warranty and also assured that if any problem/defect is found in the mobile, it would replace the same or refund the money.  After receipt of mobile, the complainant inserted two sims in the mobile but the 2^nd SIM slot does not work properly and when the interest used in the said SIM it went out of order/disable/unable.  The complainant approached service centre of OP No.2 in Sector 31, Chandigarh.  The service centre kept the mobile with it and asked the complainant to collect it after two days.  After two days the complainant collected the mobile from the customer care who told the complainant that the problem has been rectified by installing the software.  However, the problem occurred again on the same day and the complainant again visited the service centre to get the problem rectified. The service centre kept the mobile with it and asked the complainant to collect it after three days. The problem was not rectified and then the customer care of OP No.2 changed the mother board of the mobile on 15.06.2015. Even after change of mother board, the complainant faced the same problem.  The complainant requested the customer care centre of OP No.2 to either replace the mobile or to refund its price.  The complainant many a times requested the OPs to replace the mobile with a new one or to refund its sale price.   Thus, with these allegations the complainant has filed the present complaint.

2.             OP No.1 in the preliminary objections of written statement has pleaded that the complainant has suppressed true and material facts and is trying to mislead this Forum.  OP No.1 is not engaged in selling of any good manufactured or produced by its own. It is engaged in selling of goods manufactured and produced by other manufacturers.  The product sold by OP No.1 carries manufacturer’s warranty. Involvement of OP No.1 in the entire transaction is limited only to sale of product. OP No.2 is the manufacturer of the product.  On merits, it is pleaded that the complainant purchased one mobile online on 25.05.2015. OP No.1 has delivered the product in a sealed box to complainant within time specified in the order.  It is the duty of the manufacturer or its service centre to remove the defects, if any, to the satisfaction of the customer.  There are no specific allegations against OP No.1 and thus, OP No.1 has sought dismissal of complaint against it.

3.             OP No.2 sent the reply through courier which was taken on record.  It is stated that notice for appearance has been wrongly addressed to the representatives of Motorola Solutions India Private Limited (formerly known as Motorola India Private Limited) as it is no longer engaged in the cellular phones business and has not offered any of its products for sale online through Flipkart.  It has spun off its entire cellular phone business into a separate company called Motorola Mobility in 2011 which is now a subsidiary of Lenovo and in no way related to Motorola Solutions India Private Limited. Thus, it has sought dismissal of the complaint against it.

4.             During the course of proceedings, it is learnt that the OP No.1 has replaced the defective mobile hand set with a new one and shipped the same to the complainant vide retail/tax invoice/bill dated 09.11.2015. Therefore, the sale on 25.05.2015 of defective mobile hand and replacement on 09.11.2015 is not disputed between the parties. That being the admitted position, the only limited issue remained for consideration was whether the OP No.1 has failed to timely redress the grievance of the complainant and consumed more than 7 months,  leading to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service causing mental agony and harassment to the complainant.

5.             It is proved on record that the defective mobile hand set has been replaced by OP No.1 on 09.11.2015 during the course of proceedings, therefore, act of OP No.1 ipso facto proves the deficiency in service in rendering proper and effective after sale service to the complainant. The complainant has evidently suffered mental agony and harassment. Therefore, the complaint deserves to be allowed against OP No.1.

6.             Since the hand set has been replaced by OP No.1 and there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP No.1, thus complaint against OP No.2 is liable to be dismissed.

7.             In view of above discussions, the complaint is allowed against OP No.1 and is dismissed against OP No.2. OP No.1 is directed:

(a)    to pay to the complainant a lump sum compensation of Rs.5,000/- (Rs. Five thousand only) for mental agony, harassment and costs of litigation.

                Compliance of the above direction be made within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Certified copies of the order be furnished to the parties forthwith free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced.                           

May 10 2016.     

                           (Mrs. Madhu P. Singh)

                                                                        President

(Amrinder Singh Sidhu)

Member

(Mrs. R.K. Aulakh)

               Member