CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM PALAKKAD
Dated this the 30th day May, 2017
PRESENT : SMT. SHINY.P.R, PRESIDENT Date of filing: 29/08/2016
: SMT.SUMA K.P, MEMBER
: SRI.V.P.ANANTHA NARAYANAN, MEMBER
CC/134/2016
Ramesh.K.B,
Thazhathethil House,
Kadambur Post,
Ottapalam-699 515,
Palakkad, Kerala. : Complainant
(In person)
Vs
- Service Manager,
Ridham Mobiles(Authorised Service Center),
-
Mavoor Road, Calicut-673 004,
Calicut, Kerala.
(By Adv.Swalih.M.A)
- Managing Director,
Motorola Mobility India, Pvt.Ltd.12th Floor, : Opposite parties
Tower D, DLF Cyber Greens,
DLF Cyber city Gurgaon,
Haryana,India-122 002.
- Sales Manager,
Mobile Gallery,
Ottapalam Shopping Complex,
Main Road, Ottapalam-679 101,
Palakkad, Kerala.
(By Adv.E.R.Stalin)
O R D E R
By Sri.V.P.Anantha Narayanan, Member
Brief facts of the Case.
The complainant had purchased bought MOTO G Turbo Edition on 27/07/2016 which has been manufactured for the 2nd opposite party from the 3rd opposite party.
On 30/07/2016 due to his manual handling error there was a problem for the SIM slot.
On 03/08/2016, complainant went back to the retailer mobile shop from where complainant bought this phone. They told him that it was due to handling problem and complainant would not get warranty. They asked him to go to Ernakulam where the service centre is located.
On 12/08/2016, complainant went to service centre located at Ernakulam. They said that the part was not available and asked him to contact the authorized service center at Calicut or else they told him that it would take about 20 days.
Since, he is a Government servant and has limited number of casual leave complainant asked his wife’s sister’s son Mr.Sanaj.R to contact the service centre at Calicut. He went to Calicut service centre on 17/08/2016, and gave phone for repairing the SIM slot complaint and they returned phone on 19/08/2016. The amount paid was Rs.1600/-.(Rupees one thousand six hundred only)
After repairing the phone, the following problems occurred:
Problem for display,
The SIM slot which was repaired still not working.
Complaint for the speaker.
The complainant again Contacted the service center but they told him that it can only be repaired and cannot be replaced.
He also contacted the customer care of 2nd opposite party . They also told him that it cannot be replaced.
He went back to 3rd opposite party and didn’t get a positive reply from them too; all this happened within one month.
He would like to get the cost of Rs.12,600/-since he lost faith in this brand, Rs,1,600/-for the repair cost, brand expenses Rs.1,800/-, Rs.5,000/-as compensation for the act of opposite party and the difficulties faced by him, Rs.6,500/-for mental agony which he has faced since the day of purchase.
The complaint was admitted and notices were issued to opposite parties 1,2&3. Although notices were sent to opposite parties only opposite parties 1&3 filed vakalaths; notice to 2nd opposite party deemed to have been served on them, they were absent and hence set ex-parte. Opposite parties 1&3 filed their versions.
In their version 1st opposite party contend the following.
1st opposite party denies all the allegations and averments in the above complaint, save those that are specifically admitted here under. The above petition is not maintainable either in law or facts. The petition besides being frivolous and vexatious is bereft of bonafides. It is filed as an experimental one to get unlawful gain. The complainant has no cause of action to file a petition of this nature against this respondent and on that ground itself the complainant is not entitled to get any relief.
The 1st opposite party is not aware of the averments made in the 1st paragraph of the complaint and hence denied.
Regarding the facts made out in the 2nd paragraph, the complainant admits that the damage caused to the SIM slot of the mobile phone was due to his man handling error.
The 1st opposite party is not aware of the allegations in the 3rd paragraph of the complaint and hence denied.
1st opposite party is not aware of the averments made out in the fourth paragraph. The complainant has stated that he has approached the service centre located at Ernakulam, and the services made from the said service centre is not made clear in the petition. The said service centre is a necessary party to complaint they were not included as parties to the proceedings. Hence the complaint is bad for non-jointer of necessary parties. The service details and documents made from the service centre at Ernakulam are highly necessary to prove the complaint.
The averments made in the 5th paragraph of the complaint are not correct and hence denied. The mobile phone was taken to the 1st opposite party by a person named Sanaj with a defect to its SIM slot. The complaint was duly recorded in the office. The defect was cured and he was satisfied with the service of first opposite party. The mobile phone was returned to the same person who brought it. The relevant documents regarding the service are with the first opposite party and it will reveal that the service was proper and there was no deficiency of service from the first opposite party.
The allegations in the 6th paragraph are utterly false and hence denied. The first opposite party has only made services with regard to the SIM slot. That service was proper and the customer was satisfied with the service rendered by the first opposite party and the defect was cured. The problems if occurred after the service are due to the manual handling errors and due to the careless usage of the complainant. There is no deficiency of service from this opposite party and the problems stated after the service is solely due to the man handling error of the complainant.
The averments in the 7th paragraph are utterly false and hence denied. The complainant has not contacted opposite party since the service was over.
The averments in paragraph 8 and 9 are also false and hence denied by this opposite party.
The defects caused are only due to the man handling error of the complainant. The details regarding the service rendered from the service centre at Ernakulam are essential to prove the complaint. They were not included as party to the proceedings without including them as a party and getting the records and documents about the service, the complaint cannot be proved. Hence this petition is lacking in non-jointer of necessary parties.
Hence this Hon’ble Forum may be pleased to dismiss this complaint with cost to the first opposite party.
In the version filed by the 3rd opposite party before the Hon’ble Forum the following are contended by them.
3rd opposite party denies all the allegations and averments in the above complaint, save those that are specifically admitted here under. The above petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The petition besides being vexatious and frivolous is bereft of bonafides. It is filed as an experimental one to get unlawful gain. The complainant has no cause of action to file a petition of this nature against this respondent and on that ground itself the complainant is not entitled to get any relief. The petition is to be dismissed in lime line.
The averments made in the 1st paragraph of the complaint is admitted by 3rd opposite party. The complainant had bought a MOTO G Turbo edition mobile phone on 27/07/2016 from this opposite party.
The facts stated in the 2nd paragraph of the complaint is true and that paragraph itself reveals the fact that, the said problem happened due to the man handling error of the complainant. On 30/07/2016 due to the handling error of the complainant the SIM slot of the mobile phone got damaged.
The averments in the 3rd paragraph are not correct. On 03/08/2016, the complainant approached the 3rd opposite party advised them that they are not the authorized service centre and to approach the authorized service centre.
The averments made in the fourth and fifth paragraphs of the complaint are not correct and it is to be proved by the complainant.
The averments made in the paragraphs of 6,7,8 are stories made out from the wims of the complainant, hence denied.
The averments made in the 9th paragraph is false and hence denied. The complainant had not approached 3rd opposite party . Since then.
The defect caused is solely due to the man handling error of the complainant. The mobile phone was in good condition at the time of sale and there was no deficiency of service from this opposite party. 3rd Opposite party is unnecessarily being dragged into this case.
Hence this Hon’ble Forum may be pleased to dismiss this complaint with cost to the 3rd opposite party.
Complainant filed chief affidavit and produced the defective mobile phone which was purchased by him and which was marked as MO 1. Opposite parties 1&3 also filed their affidavits. Opposite party filed IA 108/17 and 108(a)/17 for permission to cross examine the complainant. It was allowed and complainant was cross examined as PW1. From the side of the complainant Exts.A1 to A3 were marked, except Ext.A2 which was marked with objection . From the side of the opposite parties except affidavits and argument notes no other documents were produced.
- Whether there is any negligence and/or deficiency of service/unfair trade practice from the part of opposite parties?
- If so, what is the relief and cost?
Issues 1&2
In this case the complainant purchased a MOTO G Turbo edition mobile phone from the 3rd opposite party which has been manufactured by the 2nd opposite party, for Rs.12,600/- on 27/7/2016 as per Ext.A1. On 30/07/2016 there occurred a problem for the SIM slot due to his manual handling error. On 03/08/2016, the complainant went to 3rd opposite party’s mobile shop where he was told that due to his mishandling problem, he would not get warranty and was asked to go to Ernakulam where the service centre is located. On 12/08/2016 the complainant went to Ernakulam service centre where he was told that the part was not available and he was asked to contact the authorized service centre at Calicut or else it would take around 20 days. The complainant asked his relative - Sanaj.R, to contact the 1st opposite party. Sanaj went to Calicut service centre(1st opposite party) on 17/08/2016 and handed them the mobile phone for repairing the SIM slot complaint. 1st opposite party returned the phone on 19/08/2016 and Rs.1600/-was paid to them as repair charges vide Ext.A2 which was marked with objection. According to the complainant, after repairing the phone, the problems occurred to the mobile phone were problem for display, the SIM slot which was repaired still not working and complaint for the speaker. The complainant again contacted the service centre at Calicut and customer care of 2nd opposite party by email marked as Ext.A3 who informed him that the mobile phone can only be repaired but cannot be replaced. Then, on not getting a positive reply from 3rd opposite party a complaint was filed before the Hon’ble Forum. The complainant prays to the Hon’ble Forum to allow his claim towards cost of the phone Rs.12,600/-, repair cost Rs.1,600/-, travelling expenses Rs.1,800/-, Rs.5,000/-as compensation for the act of the opposite parties and difficulties faced by the complainant, Rs.6,500/-for mental agony faced by him since the date of purchase of the phone.
According to opposite parties 1&3, on 30/07/2016 the complainant purchased a Moto G Turbo version mobile phone from the 3rd opposite party and due to the manhandling error of the complainant, the SIM slot of the mobile phone got damaged. He approached 3rd opposite party who asked him to approach the authorized service centre at Ernakulam and the complainant accordingly approached the Ernakulam service centre on 12/08/2016 who told the complainant that the parts being not available there, the complainant would have to wait for at least 20 days. Therefore, the complainant approached the 1st opposite party on 17/08/2016 through his relative, namely, Sanaj and the phone was given back to Sanaj on 19/08/2016 by the 1st opposite party after repair. After the service, according to the complainant, the following problems occurred to the mobile phone, namely, problem for display SIM slot which was repaired still not working complaint for speaker etc.
According to 1st and 3rd opposite parties, the mobile phone was in good condition at the time of purchase, as admitted by the complainant, it was due to his handling error that the SIM slot of the mobile phone got damaged. Hence according to opposite party 3 there was no deficiency of service on their part. Further opposite parties contend that it is not believable that complainant has not opened the box of the mobile and has not verified the mobile phone at the time of purchase because complainant is an educated and a qualified person. Opposite parties further contend that the Ernakulam service centre should have been made a party in the array of opposite parties which complainant has not done, because the mobile phone was sent to the Ernakulam service centre and the documents relating to nature of examination and service conducted at that service centre is an essential element in this case. Further, according to opposite parties 1&3, the mobile phone was taken to 1st opposite party by a relative of the complainant, Mr.Sanaj, who was not examined. Sanaj was the person who collected the phone after servicing by the 1st opposite party. Also, the complainant has to prove the existence of the complaints in the mobile phone with reasons.
Hence opposite parties 1&3 pray to the Hon’ble Forum to dismiss the complaint with cost to opposite parties 1&3.
From the above we understand that the brand new mobile phone purchased by the complainant from the 3rd opposite party got damaged within 3 days owing to a problem in its SIM slot. Although the complainant admitted his handling error for the problem to the mobile phone , we observe that within 3 days of its purchase occurrence of a problem to a new mobile phone demonstrates its manufacturing defects. We also view that even after getting the mobile phone repaired by the 1st opposite party problems still persisted with the phone namely problem for display, SIM slot already repaired still not working and complaint for the speaker. Hence we view that in servicing and repairing the mobile phone deficiency has occurred on the part of opposite parties.
In the light of the above the complaint is allowed.
We order opposite parties 1,2&3 to be jointly and severally liable to pay to the complainant invoice price of the mobile phone Rs.12,600/-(Rupees Twelve thousand and six hundred only) together with Rs.3,000/-(Rupees three thousand only) by way of compensation for mental agony suffered by the complainant plus Rs.1000/-(Rupees one thousand only) for litigation expense incurred by him. Opposite parties 1,2&3 are also hereby directed to take the disputed defective mobile phone surrendered by the complainant in the Hon’ble Forum, as and when this order is complied by opposite parties 1,2&3 jointly and severally.
This order should be executed within one month from the date of receipt of this order; otherwise interest @9% per annum on the total amount due should also be paid to the complainant from the date of this order till realization.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 30th day of May 2017.
Sd/-
Shiny. P.R
President
Sd/- Suma. K.P Member
Sd/-
V.P.Anantha Narayanan
Member
