DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016
Case No. 306/18
Ms. Chanchal Yadav
S/o Sh. Gajraj Singh
R/o WZ-114 A, Todapur, IARI Pusa,
New Delhi-110012
….Complainant
Versus
- Service & Communication Solutions
A-180, Ist Floor, Sukhdev Nagar Market,
Opposite Defence Colony Red Light
New Delhi-110003
- Motorola Solutions India P. Ltd.
Registered Office at: Motorola Excellence Centre
415/2, Mehrauli-Gurgaon Road,
Sector 14, Gurgaon, Haryana India-122001
….Opposite Party
Date of Institution : 10.10.2018
Date of Order : 30.01.2023
Coram:
Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President
Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member
Sh. U.K. Tyagi, Member
ORDER
Member: Sh. U.K. Tyagi
- Complainant has made a request for passing an award for seeking direction to Services & Communication Solutions and Motorola Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as OP-1 & 2 respectively) (i) to refund the amount of Rs. 3,050/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. (ii) to award an amount of Rs. 1 lac towards compensation (iii) to give an amount of Rs. 11000/- towards litigation expenses etc. It may be relevant to mention here that the complainant initially made the request to refund Rs. 9,000/- in the complaint filed in this Forum on 10.10.18. Later on vide her complaint dated 30.10.18, revised the refund amount Rs. 3050/- instead of 9000. The same was allowed and accepted by this Forum.
- Brief facts of the case are as under:-
The complainant, purchased a mobile handset namely ‘Motorola’ C-4 Plus on 25.05.2016 for Rs. 14,999/-. The copy of bill is enclosed at annexure-A. After 23-25 months from the purchase of above said handset, the complainant faced many problems with respect to this handset. The handset was taken up with OP-1 and it was informed on 01.06.18 on telephone that the battery and USB required to be changed. Accordingly, the complainant allowed the replacement of the said items. A Bill was raised for Rs. 3050/- on 04.06.18. The copy is annexed as Annexure-B. The complainant further stated that she faced the same problem on the same day. The complainant visited the premises of OP-1 and deposited this handset on same day with OP-1. The complainant got the handset on 08.06.18 but she faced the same problem. The complainant again deposited the handset on 11.06.18. The matter was brought to notice of “customer care” executive of OP who further told that the handset has been examined and motherboard of handset may be faulty and if she wants to have the motherboard changed, then she has to pay Rs. 9000/- and Rs. 3050/- paid by her shall be adjusted. The various emails dated 1.06.18, 18.06.18, 20.06.18, 21.06.18, 20.06.18, 03.07.18 and 17.07.18 were sent but it appeared that the OP-1 &2 were avoiding to give satisfactory reply. The copies of these email are annexed at Annexure-D. Hence the compliant.
- OP-1& 2 did not put up their appearance despite notices being served on them as per track-report. The OPs were proceeded exparte vide order dated 28.01.19. The complainant filed its exparte evidence and written submissions. Oral arguments of the complainant were also heard and concluded.
- This Commission has gone into the entire record available and due consideration was given to the arguments. After going through the complaint and other related documents it seems that the grievance of complainant hinges around the replacement of battery & USB on 04.06.18. The complainant stated that the OP-1 &2 had not provided satisfactory reply. The complainant contended that the warranty of the handset in question expires on Sept, 2017. The manufacturing date of the old battery as confirmed by the staff of OP-1 was December, 2016 though the handset was purchased on 25.05.16. Meaning thereby, the OP-1 &2 handed over the old battery which was bound to expire before the warranty period of handset in Sept’2017. That is why, the OP-1 & 2 were not giving satisfactory reply as contended by complainant. The complainant further maintained that the replacement of old battery & USB was unwarranted and unnecessary and that is why, OP 1 & 2 were avoiding satisfactory reply. The handset, after replacement of battery & USB, did not function and same problem persisted even thereafter. As could be seen from the emails and bills dated 04.06.18 that the replacement was done on 04.06.18 and the same problem was faced by complainant on same day. The handset was deposited with OP-1 on 05.06.18. The deposition slips are found enclosed as evidences.
- After having considered the above narrations and other materials, this Commission is of the considered opinion that when the handset remained in same condition even after having the battery etc. replaced. Meaning thereby the handset suffered with other inadequacies. The replacement as mentioned by complainant seems unwarranted. The OP-1 &2 remained exparte. Emails of complainant and OPs were available and are also taken into account while deciding the case. Accordingly, the OP-1&2 are held responsible for the deficiency in service. It is also directed that OP-1 & 2 are severally and jointly liable to refund the amount of Rs. 3050/- and Rs. 5000/- towards compensation and litigation charges within three months from the receipt of this order failing which interest @ 9% p.a. shall be levied till its realization.
File be consigned to the record room and order be uploaded on the website.
