Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/377/2016

Rajeshwari Gopinath - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, Digital Communication Service Prabhu Center. - Opp.Party(s)

A.Palaniappan

06 Sep 2019

ORDER

                                                                  Complaint presented on : 02.11.2016

                                                                    Date of Disposal            : 06.09.2019

                                                                                  

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, T.N.P.S.C. Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 3.

 

PRESENT: THIRU. M. MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B, M.L.                    : PRESIDENT

TR. R. BASKARKUMARAVEL, B.Sc., L.L.M., BPT., PGDCLP.  : MEMBER

 

C.C. No.377/2016

DATED THIS FRIDAY THE 06^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2019

                                 

Rajeswari Gopinath,

W/o. Mr. E. Gopinath,

No.1, Giriyappa Road,

Drivers’ Colony,

Chennai – 600 017.                                                        .. Complainant. 

                                                                                                ..Versus..

 

1. The Manager,

Digital Communication Service,

Prabhu Center, 1^st Floor,

Old No.20, New No.46, 1^st Floor,

Ramasamy Street, Behind Fathima Jewellers,

T. Nagar,

Chennai – 600 017.

 

2. The Managing Director,

Motorola Mobility India Pvt. Ltd.,

12^th Floor Tower D, DLF Cyber Green,

DLF Cyber City,

Harayana,

Gurgaon – 122 002.

 

3. The Manager,

Amazon India Pvt. Ltd.,

S P Info, M G R Main Road,

Kodandarama Nagar,

Perungudi,

Chennai – 600 096.                                              ..  Opposite parties.

 

Counsel for the complainant  : Mr. A. Palaniappan

Opposite parties 1 & 3            : Exparte                                 

For 2^nd opposite party             : Mr. K. Kuppuswamy,

                                                   Authorised Representative

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

       This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties 1 to 3 under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 prays to refund the cost of the cell phone of Rs.14,999/- with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from 25.05.2016 till realization and to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and deficiency in service with cost of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant.

1.    The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:-

The complainant submits that on seeing the advertisements of the 2^nd opposite party, he purchased a mobile phone Moto G Plus, 4^th Gen (Black 32 GB) Black cell phone on 25.05.2016 manufactured by the 2^nd opposite party through online and paid a sum of Rs.14,999/-.   As per the instructions, the complainant handled the mobile phone.  But within few days from the date of purchase, the mobile phone started giving troubles of hangs while trying to make calls.  Immediately, the complainant contacted the 3^rd opposite party, the Customer Care Centre of the 2^nd opposite party.   The 2^nd opposite party’s Customer Care Centre directed the complainant to restore default settings of mobile to the factory, reset the software and assured that the cell phone will not have any problems hereafter and the 2^nd opposite party sent an email dated:17.06.2016 to the complainant asking her to reopen the issue if it is not resolved to her satisfaction within 7 days.  But the complaint has not been resolved.  Hence, the complainant contacted the 2^nd opposite party’s Egmore Service Centre once again on 13.07.2016, the 2^nd opposite party sent an e-mail to bring down the records related to cell phone. On 16.07.2016, when the complainant approached the 1^st opposite party and to her shock and surprise, the service centre was closed.  On 18.07.2016, the complainant sent an email to the 2^nd opposite party in detail.  On 19.07.2016, the complainant met the 1^st opposite party, Service Engineer, Mr. Nagarajan who made the complainant to wait for 2 hours and took the mobile phone for service under Job card and handed over the cell to the complainant stating that the software will be updated and there will not be any problem.   But the problem is still subsisting.  The complainant submits that after investing the hard earned money of Rs.14,999/-, the complainant was made to run pillar to post for no fault of except purchasing of defective mobile phone.  The complainant contacted the 3^rd opposite party through e-mail dated:19.09.2016 who delivered the mobile phone and requested for redressal of her grievance.  But the 1^st opposite party not rectified the defects of the same hanging over problem once again started. On 27.09.2016, the complainant sent a registered letter to the customer service Head of the opposite party and in the mean time, the opposite party sent an email dated:27.09.2016 that the complainant’s mobile has been repaired.    On 18.10.2016, the opposite party sent an email stating that “we apologize for inconvenience caused.  As your case has been already escalated to our relevant team with reference No. 160831-014822, we request you to follow up the case with the above reference number”.  On receiving the above email, the complainant sent a reply e-mail stating the hardship faced by her regularly in the hands of the opposite parties 1 & 2 for no fault of the complainant.   The act of the opposite parties 1 to 3 amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice which caused great mental agony.    Hence, the complaint is filed.

2.     Inspite of receipt of notice, the opposite parties 1 & 3 has not appeared before this Forum and hence, the opposite parties 1 & 3 are set ex-parte. 

3.      The brief averments in the written version filed by 2^nd opposite party is as follows:

The 2^nd opposite party specifically denies each and every allegation made in the complaint and put the complainant to strict proof of the same.   The 2^nd opposite party states that all the complaints related to the mobile phone were serviced then and there.  As a gesture of goodwill support and in furtherance of its customer friendly approach, still prepared to provide the replacement of the same model of Motorola Smart Phone i.e. Moto G4 Plus to the complainant as against receipt of the accessories and Original invoice.   Therefore, the authorized representative of the 2^nd opposite party have arranged to contact the complainant over phone on various dates and conveyed the bonafide offer to the complainant and since the complainant has insisted for refund of the cost of her old handset, the same was also offered later by the opposite party.  The alleged Service Provider and Customer Care also has not properly rectified the defects in the mobile phone.   It is submitted that the complainant has contacted the Authorized Service Provider of the 2^nd opposite party and the authorized engineers has suggested the complainant vide reference number 160617-013182 to reset the handset in question.  

4.     The 2^nd opposite party states that when the complainant has approached the Authorized Service Provider of the 2^nd opposite party for the issue of hanging on 19.07.2016 the same was duly looked into by the engineer vide reference No.CTG/MG/16/01046 and updated the software to make good the handset in good working condition and returned to the complainant on the same day i.e. on 19.07.2016.   Therefore, there is no deficiency in services.  When the complainant has approached the Authorized Service Provider of the 2^nd opposite party for the hearing issue on 06.09.2016, the same was duly looked into by the Engineer vide reference No.CTG/MG/16/01964 and replaced the part, PCB having IMEI No.354115070089451 to make good the smart phone in working condition and closed the complaint call on 28.10.2016 and the officials of the service centre have duly informed the complainant to take delivery of her handset which was kept ready in good working condition.   However, the complainant has denied collecting her handset from the service Centre in spite of the number of attempts / efforts to remind the complainant over phone by the representative of service centre to take delivery of her Smart Phone from them which was kept in good working condition went in vain.   In fact,

“As per Section 23 of the Consumer Protection Act categorically provides that if a complaint is reported for goods or service, then as a first step, defect is to be rectified.  As a second step, the goods in question are to be exchanged with the goods of the same description or the price of the goods to be refunded”. 

The 2^nd opposite party cannot be held liable for the wrong doings/ lack of co-operation of the complainant.   Therefore, there is no deficiency in services; unfair trade practice which caused mental agony and hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed as against the 2^nd opposite party.

5.     To prove the averments in the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A16 are marked.  Proof affidavit of the 2^nd opposite party is filed and no document is marked on the side of the 2^nd opposite party.

6.      The points for consideration is:-

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to get refund of a sum of Rs.14,999/- the cost of the mobile phone with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. as prayed for?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with cost of Rs.10,000/- as prayed for?

7.      On point:-

The opposite parties 1 & 3 after due service of notice remained ex-parte.  The complainant filed his written argument.  The 2^nd opposite party has not filed any written argument. Heard both Counsels. Perused the records namely; the complaint, written version, proof affidavits and documents.  The complainant pleaded and contended that on seeing the advertisements of the 2^nd opposite party, he purchased a mobile phone Moto G Plus, 4^th Gen (Black 32 GB) Black cell phone on 25.05.2016 manufactured by the 2^nd opposite party through online and paid a sum of Rs.14,999/-.  Ex.A1 is the copy of Tax Invoice.  The said mobile phone has one year warranty as per Ex.A2.  As per the instructions, the complainant handled the mobile phone.  But within few days from the date of purchase, the mobile phone started giving troubles of hanging while making calls.  Immediately, the complainant contacted the 3^rd opposite party, the Customer Care Centre of the 2^nd opposite party.   The 2^nd opposite party’s Customer Care Centre directed the complainant to restore the cell phone to the factory, reset the software and assured that the cell phone will not have any problems and thereafter, the 2^nd opposite party also sent an email dated:17.06.2016 as per Ex.A3.   But the complaint has not been resolved.  Hence, the complainant contacted the 2^nd opposite party’s Egmore Service Centre once again.   On 13.07.2016, the 2^nd opposite party sent an e-mail as per Ex.A4 to bring down the records related to cell phone. On 16.07.2016, when the complainant approached the 1^st opposite party to her shock and surprise, the service centre was closed.  The complainant sent due message immediately proves the harassment and deficiency in service.  On 18.07.2016, the complainant sent an email as per Ex.A5 to the 2^nd opposite party in detail.  On 19.07.2016, the complainant met the 1^st opposite party, Service Engineer, Mr. Nagarajan who made the complainant to wait for 2 hours and took the mobile phone for service under Job card and handed over the cell phone to the complainant stating that the software will be updated and there will not be any problem.  Ex.A6 is the copy of service receipt issued by the 1^st opposite party.   But the problem is still subsisting. 

8.     Further the contention of the complainant is that after investing the hard earned money of Rs.14,999/-, the complainant was made to run pillar to post for no fault of except purchasing of defective mobile phone.  The complainant contacted the 3^rd opposite party through e-mail dated:19.09.2016 as per Ex.A11 who delivered the mobile phone and requested for redressal of her grievance.  But the opposite parties denied.  The 1^st opposite party not rectified the defects and the same hanging problem once again started.  Ex.A8 is the photocopy showing the hanging nature of the mobile phone.   The opposite party sent an e-mail dated:25.08.2016 as per Ex.A9 in which it reads as follows:

“We recommend to resubmit the device in service centre and share us the job sheet number.   I understand that you are disappointed and does not want to submit the device again but would like to inform you that once the device is with service centre we would be able to help you”. 

But the opposite parties has not helped the complainant in any way.  The Job card dated:30.08.2016 as per Ex.A10 also very clear that the substantial service has not been done.   On 27.09.2016, the complainant sent a registered letter to the customer service Head of the opposite party as per Ex.A13 and in the mean time, the opposite party sent an email dated:27.09.2016 that the complainant’s mobile has been repaired.  But what are the repairs carried out has not been explained.   On 22.10.2016, the opposite party sent an email stating that “we apologize for inconvenience caused.  As your case has been already escalated to our relevant team with reference No. 160831-014822, we request you to follow up the case with the above reference number” as per Ex.A16 proves the unfair nature of service.    Hence the complainant requested for the refund of the cost of the mobile phone. 

9.     The 2^nd opposite party without responding the claim of the complainant in such a proper manner and filed written version admitting that   

“.... As a gesture of goodwill support and in furtherance of its consumer friendly approach, still prepared to provide the replacement of the same Model of Motorola Smart Phone i.e. Moto G4 Plus to the complainant as against receipt of accessories and original invoice”.

  But the 2^nd opposite party has not whispered anything about the replacement till filing of the case proves the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  Further the contention of the 2^nd opposite party is that all the complaints related to the mobile phone were service then and there.  But there is no proper proof on the part of the 2^nd opposite party.  On the other hand, it is apparently clear from the documents that several number of e-mails without any substantial meanings exchanged by both parties.   The alleged Service Provider and Customer Care also has not properly rectified the defects in the mobile phone.   The 2^nd opposite party also admitted that

“As per Section 23 of the Consumer Protection Act categorically provides that if a complaint is reported for goods or service, then as a first step, defect is to be rectified.  As a second step, the goods in question are to be exchanged with the goods of the same description or the price of the goods to be refunded”.  

In this case, the complainant is claiming the refund of the cost of the cell phone with compensation.  There is no iota of evidence produced by the opposite party evenafter repeated claim for rectification made properly.  Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Forum is of the considered view that the opposite parties 1 to 3 jointly and severally shall pay a sum of Rs.14,999/-  being the cost price of the Moto G Plus, 4^th Gen (Black, 32 GB) cell phone and a compensation of Rs.10,000/- for mental agony with cost of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant.

In the result, this complaint is allowed in part.  The  opposite parties 1 to 3 jointly and severally are directed to pay a sum of Rs.14,999/- (Rupees Fourteen thousand nine hundred and ninety nine only) being the cost price of Moto G Plus, 4^th Gen (Black, 32 GB) cell phone and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/-  (Rupees Ten thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony with cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) to the complainant.

  The above  amounts shall be payable  within six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which, the said amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a. to till the date of payment.

Dictated  by the President to the Steno-typist, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 06^th day of September 2019. 

 

MEMBER                                                                                PRESIDENT

 

COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:-

Ex.A1	25.05.2016	Copy of receipt issued by the 3rd opposite party
Ex.A2		Copy of warranty card issued by the 2nd opposite party
Ex.A3	17.06.2016	Copy of email communication sent by the 2nd opposite party
Ex.A4	13.07.2016	Copy of email communication sent by the 2nd opposite party
Ex.A5	18.07.2016	Copy of email sent by the complainant to the 2nd opposite party
Ex.A6	19.07.2016	Copy of after service receipt issued by the 1st opposite party
Ex.A7	19.07.2016	Copy of email communication sent by the 2nd opposite party
Ex.A8	24.08.2016	Photo copy of the complainant’s cell phone
Ex.A9	25.08.2016	Copy of email communication sent by the 2nd opposite party
Ex.A10	30.08.2016	Copy of Job card issued by the 1st opposite party on receipt of complainant’s cell phone for service
Ex.A11	19.09.2016	Copy of email sent by the complainant to the 3rd opposite party
Ex.A12	21.09.2016 to 24.10.2016	Copy of SMS chat messages and reply sent by the Engineer Mr. Nagarajan of the 1st opposite party
Ex.A13	27.09.2016	Copy of letter sent by the complainant to the 2nd opposite party through registered post with acknowledgement proof
Ex.A14	28.09.2016	Copy of letter sent by the complainant to the 2nd opposite party through registered post with acknowledgement proof
Ex.A15	31.10.2016	Copy of email sent by the 2nd opposite party
Ex.A16	31.10.2016	Copy of reply email sent by the complainant

 

2^ND OPPOSITE PARTY SIDE DOCUMENTS:-  NIL

 

                              

MEMBER                                                                                                                                                               PRESIDENT