Delhi

North East

CC/1/2020

Mrs. Anuradha - Complainant(s)

Versus

Singh Telecom - Opp.Party(s)

08 May 2023

ORDER

   DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

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

 

Complaint Case No.01/20

 

In the matter of:

 

	Mrs. Anuradha, W/o Sh. Rajeev Kumar Mishra, B-179, New Seemapuri, Delhi-110093	Complainant
	Versus
1.       2.	Singh Telecom G-7, Plot No. 4, Satyam Plaza, B & E DDA Market, Dilshad Garden Delhi-110095 Motorola Mobility India Pvt. Ltd., 12th Floor Tower D, DLF Cyber Greens, DLF Cyber City, Gurgaon 122002 Haryana	Opposite Parties

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:         JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                        DATE OF ORDER  :

06.01.2020 10.01.2023 08.05.2023

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

Adarsh Nain, Member

 

 

ORDER

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer  protection Act, 2019.

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that the Complainant had purchased a mobile phone having mode no. Moto E5 Plus from Opposite Party No. 1 on 23.12.2018 for a sum of Rs. 11,500/-. The mobile in question got exploded suddenly on 02.07.2019 while she was travelling with her father on scooty. The explosion was so serious that she fell from scooty and she sustained fatal injury in her body, acute bleeding from nasal, mouth, face and eye. The Complainant reported this incidence to the Delhi Police on their online website on 02.07.2019. The Complainant admitted in Shivam Multi Speciality Hospital Pvt. Ltd. at A-135, Shalimar Garden Extn. II, near SM world Mall, Shahibabad, Ghaziabad, U.P, where she was duly examined by treating doctor. The Complainant incurred a sum of Rs. 40,400/- in medical treatment. The explosion took place only due to manufacturing defect which was inherent in the said mobile. The Complainant reported the incident to Opposite Party No. 1 and the Opposite Party No. 1 in good faith gave another mobile in lieu of exploded mobile. The Complainant submits that the Opposite Party No. 1 demanded and kept the remaining part of exploded mobile handset. The Opposite Party No. 1 although handed over new handset but refused to give compensation on account of physical injuries suffered by the Complainant because of the said accident. The Complainant sent a legal notice on 14.08.2019 through her counsel which was duly served to the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party replied to legal notice taking false and frivolous ground. The Complainant had no other option to file the present complaint for claiming damages against the Opposite Party No. 2. Opposite Party No. 1 is a performa party. The Complainant has prayed to direct the Opposite Party No. 2 to pay Rs. 40,400/- towards medical treatment with interest @ 18 % p.a., Rs. 2,00,000/- on account of mental and physical harassment and Rs. 25,000/- towards litigation expenses.
2. None has appeared on behalf of the Opposite Party No. 1. Hence, Opposite Party No. 1 proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 28.04.2022.

Case of the Opposite Party No. 2

3. Opposite Party No. 2 contested the case and filed their written statement. It is denied that the Opposite Party No. 2 had through Opposite Party No. 1 sold an inherently defective mobile handset to the Complainant. The Complainant is raising one baseless allegation with the intention of harassing and to gain undue advantage from the Opposite Party No. 2. It is pertinent to mention that the matter with regard to the explosion of the mobile of the Complainant the Opposite Party No. 2 immediately provided a swap model namely XT 1924-3 Moto e/s plus to avoid any inconvenience to the Complainant. It is denied that the explosion to the mobile of the Complainant took place due to any manufacturing defect which was inherent in the mobile. It is pertinent to mention that there is no manufacturing defect in the mobile of the Complainant and no evidence had been provided by the Complainant in this regard and as such damage that occurred to the product could have occurred due to but not limited to improper handling and usage.

Rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party No. 2

4. The Complainant filed separate rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Parties wherein the Complainant has denied the pleas raised by the Opposite Party No. 2and has reiterated the assertion made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Complainant

5. The Complainant in support of her case filed her affidavit wherein she has supported the assertions made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Opposite Party No. 2

6. To support its case Opposite Party No. 2 has filed affidavit of Mr. Paneer Gunasheelan, working as Universal Command Centre Manager at M/s Motorola Mobility India Pvt. Ltd., wherein, he has supported the case of the Opposite Party No. 2 as mentioned in the written statement.

Arguments & Conclusion

7. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the Complainant and Opposite Party No. 2. We have also perused the file and written arguments filed by the and Opposite Party No. 2. The case of the Complainant is that she has purchased a mobile phone from the Opposite Party on 23.12.2018 for a sum of Rs. 11,500/-. The mobile phone in question got exploded suddenly on 02.07.2019 while she was travelling with her father on scooty. The explosion was so serious that she fell from scooty and she sustained fatal injury in her body, acute bleeding from nasal, mouth, fact and eye. The Complainant reported this incidence to the Delhi Police on their online website on 02.07.2019.  The Complainant admitted in hospital and treated by the doctors and incurred cost of Rs. 40,400/- in medical treatment. The case of the Complainant is that explosion took place only due to manufacturing defect in the said mobile. The Complainant took up the matter with the Opposite Party No. 1 and Opposite Party No. 1 in good faith gave another mobile phone in lieu of damaging mobile phone. The case of the complainant is before this Commission is reimbursement of medical treatment and compensation of mental and physical harassment. As per documents submitted by the Complainant, the said accident was happened on 02.07.2019 and she was admitted in the hospital on 04.07.2019 and was  admitted for 10 days. She had failed to explain that if the accident was so fatal then why it took two days to get herself admitted in the hospital. After going through the medical treatment submitted by the Complainant there are no details of treatment given by the doctors, copy of test reports details, medicines given to the Complainant by the hospital and date wise treatment given to the Complainant for 10 days while she was in the hospital.
8. In view of the above, no merit is found in the complaint and the same is dismissed.
9.  Order announced on 08.05.23.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost

File be consigned to Record Room.

(Anil Kumar Bamba)	(Adarsh Nain)	(Surinder Kumar Sharma)
(Member)	(Member)	(President)