Karnataka

Kolar

CC/6/2018

Sr.Somashekhar R - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Customer Satisfaction Manager, Motorala Mobility India Pvt Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Sri.Suman.K

07 Jun 2018

ORDER

Date of Filing: 24/01/2018

Date of Order: 07/06/2018

BEFORE THE KOLAR DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, D.C. OFFICE PREMISES, KOLAR.

 

Dated: 07^th DAY OF JUNE 2018

PRESENT

SRI. K.N. LAKSHMINARAYANA, B.Sc., LLB., PRESIDENT

SMT. A.C. LALITHA, BAL, LLB.,  ……  LADY MEMBER

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 06 OF 2018

Sri. Somashekhar R,

S/o. Ramappa V,

Aged 31 Years,

Ocu: Advocate,

R/at: Begli Benajenahalli Village,

Kasaba Hobli Kolar Taluk,

Kolar District, Karnataka.                                                    ….  COMPLAINANT.

(Rep. by Sri.Suman.K, Advocate)

 

- V/s –

1) The Customer Satisfaction Manager,

Motorola Mobility India Pvt. Ltd.,

Build No.7A, 12^th Floor, Tower-d

dIF Cyber Green, Phase-III,

Gurgaon-122002.

(HARYANA)

(Exparte)

 

2) Proprietor,

Green Mobiles,

No.1/B, Indo space Logistics Park,

Puduvoyal, Durainallur Village,

Panneri Taluk, Thiruvailuvar-601206,

Tamilnadu.

(Exparte)

 

3) The Proprietor,

Green Mobiles,

No.369, 13^th Cross,

30^th Main, Banashankari 2^nd Stage,

Bangalore-560 070.

(Exparte)                                                            …. OPPOSITE PARTIES.

 

-: ORDER:-

BY SRI. K.N. LAKSHMINARAYANA, PRESIDENT,

01.   The complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite party Nos.1 to 3 Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and prays to direct the OPs to hand-over the new device equivalent to the rate of the MOTO g4 PLUS OR to return the amount of Rs.13,999/- with expenses and compensation of Rs.80,000/- and such other orders.

 

02.   The brief facts of the complainant’s case is that, he has purchased the Cell phone i.e., MOTO g4 PLUS FROM op No.3 through online (amazon.in), invoice No. TN-MAA4-167791461-15919 on 17.01.2017, by giving valuable consideration of Rs.13,999/- which is sold by OP No.2, the OP No.1 is the customer satisfaction Manager for solving the problems. 

(a)    The complainant used the said cell phone for his desire but from the beginning the said mobile when it is used for camera mode for capturing photos and for recording videos, it produces heat and suddenly getting down battery and also the device is not supporting some applications like Max Videos, etc.,.  And though the complainant used the same and at the same time Reliance Company India has introduced free phone calls with internet, the complainant has purchased 4G SIM Card and used internet in the device, but the device could not support LTE option.  The complainant could not use the free phone calls introduced by the Reliance Company India.  Thereafter the said device MOTO 4g got problems and it is automatically getting off and getting on.  The complainant gave the said cell phone to an authorized MOTO 4g service center at Kolar and after completion of the service they received Rs.400/- towards its service.  The device except display all the other problems were not solved.  The complainant requested the authorized Service Center to repair the device under 01 year warranty, but they have insisted him to pay Rs.4,300/- to repair the device and which is great trouble to him.  The said device is defective one from the manufacturer and good service is not rendered from the Ops and the complainant has suffered mental agony and loss from contact of clients.  The complainant has also issued legal notice to the Ops on 29.11.2017 and one Nagabhushana M.V. has replied on 28.12.2017.  And so far the Ops have not complied as per the reply notice.  Thereafter the complainant has filed this complaint against OP Nos.1 to 3. 

 

03.   The Ops in spite of service of notice they have not appeared before this forum and OP Nos.1 to 3 have placed exparte. 

 

04.   The complainant in spite of taking sufficient time has not filed his affidavit by way of examination-in-chief and hence the case was posted for orders.

 

05.   Now the points that do arise for our consideration are that:-

POINT NO.1:-   Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of OP Nos.1 to 3?

POINT NO.2:-   Whether the complaint is maintainable without making the manufacturer as a party to the proceedings?

 

POINT NO.3:- Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed by him?

 

POINT NO.4:-   What order?

06.   Our findings on the above points are that:-

POINT NOs.1 to 3:- In the Negative

POINT NO.4:-   As per the final order

                                        for the following:-

REASONS

07.   POINT NOS.1 to 3:- These points are taken up together for discussion to avoid the repetition of facts.  Now it is relevant to state here that, as per Annexure-2 i.e., cash memorandum the complainant has purchased the MOTO 4g PLUS through online as contended by him.  The complainant has also narrated the defects found in the mobile hand-set, so mental agony and so also loss as suffered by him in view of using of the said 4G mobile hand set.

 

08.   Further on perusal of Para-6 of the complaint it reveals that, he has not opted for service through an authorized service center by paying Rs.4,300/-.  And the complainant has not opted for the same and he is not taken the service hence there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Ops. 

 

09.   Further it is relevant to state here that, the complainant is not a layman and he is an advocate by profession and in spite of taking time he has not filed his affidavit evidence by way of examination-in-chief which discloses that, the complainant has not shown any interest and the complainant is not diligent in prosecuting the case.  Further the complainant has also not at all produced any document regarding the defects found in the alleged mobile hand-set as contended by the complainant and it cannot be said as manufacturing defect.  The complainant has also not impleaded the manufacturer as OP hence the complaint is not maintainable without impleading the manufacturer as party to the proceedings. 

 

10.   In this regard we rely citation reported in CPJ II 2017 Page 462 (NC) between Bhagwan Singh Sekhawat V/s R.K. Photostate & Communication & Others, and his lordship has also referred citation reported in 2015 SCC Online NCDRC 3226, between Rajendra Kumar Jain V/s Radha Krishan Enterprises, and another citation reported in DLT 2011 Page 675=2015 SCC.  Wherein his lordship has also observed that, without impleading manufacturer as a party the complaint is not maintainable.  The principals of the said citations are fully attracted to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand.  Such being the case the complainant has failed to prove his case against the Ops and accordingly we answered Point Nos.1 to 3 in the Negative. 

 

POINT No.4:-

11.   In view of our findings on Point Nos. 1 to 3 and the discussions made thereon, we proceed to pass the following:-

 

ORDER

01.   The complaint filed by the complainant is hereby dismissed as not maintainable.

 

02.   Send a copy of this order to both parties free of cost.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us on this 07^th DAY OF JUNE 2018)

 

 

LADY MEMBER                                PRESIDENT