Delhi

North East

CC/328/2017

Shri Sujoy Nag - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Motorola Mobility India Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

03 Feb 2020

ORDER

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 328/17

 

In the matter of:

 

	Sujoy Nag S/o Late A.K. Nag R/o 157-A, Pocket-F, G.T.B. Enclave Delhi-110093.	Complainant
	Versus
	M/s Motorola Mobility India Pvt Ltd Building No. 70A, 12th Floor, Tower-D DLF Cyber Green, Phase-III’ Gurugram-122002.	Opposite Party

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:      JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:               DATE OF DECISION      :

21.11.2017 03.02.2020 03.02.2020

 

 

N.K. Sharma, President

Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

Order passed by Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

ORDER

1. Facts pari materia for adjudication of the present complaint as culled out by the complainant are that he had purchased a MOTO MXT 1663 Gold mobile phone manufactured by OP through Flipkart online portal on 28.03.2017 vide retail invoice No. F0YQK03817 -00546193 for a sum of Rs. 17,999/-. The said mobile carried a Limited Warranty of one year. However, the handset did not get switched on on 21.06.2017 barely within 3 months of its purchase. The complainant visited Strength Services Pvt Ltd, authorized service centre (ASC) of OP located at Shakarpur, Delhi on 22.06.2017 for replacement / repair but advised that for checking the phone or any repairs, he has to accept the phone as ‘Out of Warranty’ whereas since it was in stark contradiction to the warranty terms and conditions, it was initially objected to by the complainant.  However the complainant was compelled to accept the term ‘Out of Warranty’ in order to submit his handset for replacement of his handset on 22.06.2017 from ASC of OP vide service order No. SOIN0780341706220024. Since its submission on 22.06.2017, complainant had been regularly follow-up with OP vide e-mails, live chats, tele calls and also on OP’s website seeking update on the status of repairs of his phone but he never got any resolution of his problem despite OP’s acknowledgment e-mail dated 01.07.2017 and assurance given for escalation of complainant’s case. However despite complainant’s fervent e-mails between July 2017 to November 2017 some replied to by OP and ignored, no concrete resolution came forth except perfunctory stereo typed of matter under consideration and OP never repaired the handset which has been lying with its ASC from June 2017 till November 2017 and lastly vide e-mail dated 15.11.2017, OP informed complainant of his mobile phone being out of warranty due to liquid damage and therefore any repair would be on chargeable basis. The complainant vide reply e-mail and last communication with OP dated 16.11.2017 raised objection to the contradictory stand taken by OP that on one hand it provided him one year warranty against any manufacturing defect in the subject handset which was denied to him by its ASC on pretext and compulsion to the complainant to accept the phone as out of warranty whereas the subject phone was in brand new condition without any physical damage and on the other hand statement of OP that the issue with his mobile has not been resolved even after repairs. Therefore the complainant, feeling aggrieved at the deficiency of service and inaction on the part of OP was compelled to file the present complaint praying for issuance of direction against OP  to refund the cost of the mobile i.e. Rs. 17,999/- alongwith payment of compensation of Rs. 30,000/- for mental agony and harassment and Rs. 50,000/- towards litigation expenses.

Complainant has attached copy of purchase invoice, Motorola Mobility Ltd Warranty for mobile phone booklet, copy of service order dated 22.06.2017 with warranty status ‘out of warranty’ and customer complaint – power on / off issue and service note – not getting on and PBA liquid damage, copy of complaint and response from National Consumer Helpline, copy of e-mail correspondences exchanged between the parties between June 2017 to November 2017 alongwith certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act and copy of complaint and copy of complaint letter dated 28.08.2017 from complainant to OP Gurgaon office.

2. Notice was issued to the OP on 11.12.2017. OP did not appear despite service effected on 26.12.2017 and was therefore proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 01.02.2018. 
3. Complainant filed ex-parte evidence by way of affidavit and written arguments in reassertion of his grievance against OP. On directions issued by this Forum vide order dated 12.07.2019  to the complainant to produce the subject handset before this Forum which reported way lying with ASC of OP since June 2017, the complainant complied with the said order on 16.09.2017 and the Forum examined the subject mobile in physical form and found it to be dead.
4. We have heard the arguments addressed by the complainant and have keenly perused the e-mails correspondence exchanged between OP and the complainant between June-November 2017.

Perusal of the e-mails exchanged between the parties between June 2017 to November 2017 reveal that except giving mechanical assurances of escalation of the issue by its Technical Support Service Team, OP did not do anything substantial to redress the grievance of the complainant despite being aware and ostensibly sympathetic of inconvenience suffered by complainant’s due to deprivation of mobile handset which was submitted in June 2017 and never returned to him. Complainant kept enquiring about the status of repairs of his mobile phone vide e-mails sent to June to October 2017. OP asking the complainant vide e-mail dated 16.10.2017  to submit his handset with OP’s ASC showing total lack of awareness / updation was informed by the complainant about the handset already lying its ASC since June 2017 is indicative of total lack of coordination between OP and its own ASC. Subsequently again in act of inefficiency, OP vide e-mail dated 25.10.2017 to complainant acknowledged that the mobile was not fine and again asked complainant to submitted to its ASC despite being already apprised by the complainant vide e-mail dated 17.10.2017 of the handset lying with its service centre since 22.06.2017. This is sheer deficiency of service on the part of OP and negligent and unprofessional attitude unbecoming of an MNC of OP’s stature. OP did not even fulfill its own warranty terms and conditions of either repair free of cost or replace / exchange the defective mobile or refund its price to the complainant as was incorporated in ‘What will Motorola Do’ as per its Limited Warranty terms and conditions in cases of defects arises in the handset manufactured by it and rather very cunningly to wash its hands of any liability to do either of the above, it compelled the complainant to give an undertaken of ‘Out of Warranty’. This in our opinion is a classic example of unfair trade practice.

The Hon'ble National Commission in the recent judgment of Samsung India Electronics Pvt Ltd & Anr. Vs Farooq Khan & Anr. IV (2019) CPJ 608 (NC) passed on 02.07.2019 observed in a similar case of defective mobile handset which went out of order within its warranty period and was refuse replacement by OP despite being under warranty that when a person purchases a new mobile handset, he expects efficient working of the handset. Nobody would like to return the mobile handset immediately after purchase and get the refund without any problem. There must be some real problems with the mobile set, which either were not explained to the complainant. The Hon'ble National Commission held that if a complainant has filed any complaint with the opposite party for non-functioning of mobile handset, opposite party was duty bound to rectify the defect in a mobile under warranty and failure to do so is deficiency of service. Applying the ratio of the afore-sited case law to the present case in hand on similar facts, we observe that the subject handset failed to function barely within 3 months of its purchase and ever since it deposit in June 2017, OP failed miserably to act upon the complaint for redressal by way of repair/ replacement / refund by wriggling out of the warranty thereby not only indulging in unfair trade practice under Section 2 (1)(r) but also manifesting deficiency of service under Section 2 (1)(g) of Consumer Protection Act which deprived the complainant of use of the subject mobile phone.

5. We therefore allow the present complaint and direct the OP to refund the cost of the mobile i.e. Rs. 17,999/- alongwith compensation of Rs. 5,000/- towards mental harassment and inconvenience inclusive of litigation charges to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.      
6.  Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
7.   File be consigned to record room.
8.   Announced on 03.02.2020.

 

(N.K. Sharma)     President

(Sonica Mehrotra)  Member