View 450 Cases Against Motorola
Sameer Puri filed a consumer case on 20 Feb 2020 against M/s Motorola India Pvt. Ltd in the New Delhi Consumer Court. The case no is CC/749/2016 and the judgment uploaded on 25 Feb 2020.
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI(DISTT. NEW DELHI),
‘M’ BLOCK, 1STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN,
I.P.ESTATE, NEW DELHI-110002.
Case No.CC. 749/2016 Dated:
In the matter of:
Sameer Puri,
S/o Mr. Sanjeev Puri,
R/o B-49, Greater Kailash-1,
New Delhi-110048 ....COMPLAINANT
VERSUS
Through its Managing Director,
12th Floor, Tower D,
DLF Cyber Greens, DLF Cyber City,
Gurgaon, Haryana- 122002.
Through its Managing Director,
F-12, Ist Floor,
Bhagat Singh Market,
Connaught Place,
New Delhi-110001
Also at Registered Office:-
103, Bhagat Singh Market,
Connaught Place,
Delhi- 110001. .....OPPOSITE PARTIES
PRESIDENT- ARUN KUMAR ARYA
ORDER
The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OP under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The facts as alleged in the complaint are that the complainant had purchased a handset of OP-1 (Motorola) for a sum of Rs. 17,821/- on 27/11/2015 from e-commerce retailer “Flipkart” and also provides a warranty on all its handsets for a period of 12 months from the date of purchase. The handset in question is “Moto X Play” which was represented by the OP-1 to have a water repellant coating.
It is further alleged that on 04/01/2016, the handset in question was accidentally spill of limited amount of water and that was wiped cleaned immediately, there is no way to say that the device was submerged in water or was in contact with the water for a long duration.
On 06/01/2016, the touch screen of the handset in question stopped responding, thereafter the complainant visited to the authorized service centre (OP-2) of the OP-1. The OP-2 had informed complainant that it was liquid damage in the phone and the same shall not be covered under the warranty and complainant have to pay a sum of Rs. 07,500/- for getting the handset repaired. Further, the complainant made several request to repair his phone and has also agreed to pay the charges for repair under protest but OP neither repaired and nor has the same been given back to the complainant. It is further alleged that the complainant had also sent legal notice to the OP but OP did not repair the phone in question of the complainant, hence, this complaint.
Notice of the complaint was sent to the OP but none appeared and therefore, OP was ordered to be proceeded with ex-parte on 15/03/2017 by our predecessor bench of this Forum.
Complainant has filed ex-parte evidence by way of affidavit wherein he has corroborated the contents of his complaint. File is perused.
From the testimony of the complaint and documents placed on record, this shows that complainant bought a mobile phone in question of OP-1 from the flipkart on 27/11/2015 which covered with the one year warranty. On 04/01/2016 the mobile of the complainant was spilled with water, same is admitted by the complainant. As per the terms of the warranty of mobile in question the contact of mobile with liquids, water, rain etc. does not covered under the warranty. Complainant has also placed on record the jobsheet dated 06/01/2016 which clearly shows that the OP denied to repair the mobile phone in question under the warranty due to liquid found in mobile in question.
In view of the above circumstances the Forum does not find any deficiency on the part of OP hence the present complaint stands dismissed.
This order be sent to server (www.confonet.nic.in ). A copy of this order be sent to the complainant free of cost by post.
Announced in open Forum on 20/02/2020
File be consigned to Record Room.
(ARUN KUMAR ARYA)
PRESIDENT
(NIPUR CHANDNA) (H M VYAS)
MEMBER MEMBER
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.