Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

208/2014

C.Thiagarajan, - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, Motorola Mobity India Pvt Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

C.Thiyagarajan

23 Nov 2017

ORDER

 

                                                            Complaint presented on:  31.10.2014

                                                                Order pronounced on:  23.11.2017

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

    2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

        PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,        PRESIDENT

              THIRU. M.UYIRROLI KANNAN B.B.A., B.L.,      MEMBER - I

 

THURSDAY  THE 23^rd  DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017

 

C.C.NO.208/2014

 

 

C.Thiagarajan,

A-10 Anand Square,

No:30 Govindan Road,

West Mambalam,

Chennai – 600 033.

 

                                                                                    ….. Complainant

 

..Vs..

1.The Manager,

Motorola Mobility India Private Limited,

415/2, Mehrauli – Gurgaon Road Sector 14,

Gurgaon – 122 001,

Haryana.

 

2.The Manager,

Flipkart Represented by: WS Retail Services Pvt. Ltd.,

No:42/1 & 43, Kacherakanahalli Village,

Jaigenahalli Hobli,

Hoskote Taluk,

Bangalore, Karnataka, India – 560 067.

 

 

 

3. The Manager,

Trident Technologies,

G18 Ground Floor, Apollo Dubai Plaza,

No.100, Mahalingapuram Main Road,

Nungambakkam,

Chennai – 600 034.

.....Opposite Parties

Date of complaint                                 : 05.11.2014

Counsel for Complainant                      : Party in person

 

Counsel for 2^nd Opposite Party                : M/s.C.Franco Louis, C.Louis Franco

                                                                 NAKS & Partners  

 

Counsel for 1^st & 3^rd Parties                  : Ex - parte      

 

O R D E R

 

BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.Sc., B.L.,

          This complaint is filed by the complainant to refund the cost of the mobile and compensation for mental agony with cost of the complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The complainant booked a Moto E Black Mobile Phone, product of the 1^st opposite party on 14.05.2014 through the 2^nd opposite party online shopping mart. The cost of the product is at Rs.7,089/- inclusive of tax. The product was delivered to the complainant on the next day on 15.05.2014.

          2. The product was working properly for few days and thereafter he had few issues. The display started deteriorate after two weeks and this process was continuing for few months. Since the problem became worse and unreadable, the complainant called the first opposite party’s call centre and informed the same. He suggested reporting the problem to the 3^rd opposite party/authorized service centre. On 15.09.2014 he reported the problem and on seeing the product, the 3^rd opposite party said that it will cost Rs.3,500/- to repair the product. The complainant said the product still under the warranty and entitled for free replacement and that was not agreed by the 3^rd opposite party.

          3. Again the complainant contacted the 1^st opposite party over phone and in turn suggested the complainant to go to 3^rd opposite party and requesting him to contact the 1^st opposite party and accordingly when the complainant did, the 3^rd opposite party refused to contact. The complainant sent a notice through e-mail dated 26.09.2014 to the 1^st opposite party and also a reminder on 02.10.2014. The 1^st opposite party responded immediately on the same day on 02.10.2014 and the complainant sent another mail on 04.10.2014 that he is facing the problem with the 3^rd opposite party. Again on 09.10.2014 the 1^st opposite party replied the complainant to visit the service centre/3^rd opposite party and however the 3^rd opposite party refused to do any service. Hence the complainant filed this complaint seeking to refund the cost of the mobile and compensation for mental with cost.  

          4. The 1^st & 3^rd opposite parties remained absent and they were set ex-parte.

5. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE  2^nd OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

          The 2^nd opposite party is only an online re-seller and registered with sellers on the marketplace website www.flipkart.com. The grievance of the complainant should have been only against the manufacturer as such the product carries manufacturer’s warrantee. As a reseller, involvement of opposite party No.2 in this entire transaction is very limited only, on selling the products of various manufacturers and in this instant manufacturer is opposite party No.1, It is pertinent to note that there is neither any shortage of supply nor deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.2. Hence this opposite party prays to dismiss the complaint with costs.    

6. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

          2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what extent?

7. POINT NO :1

          The 1^st opposite party is the manufacturer of the Moto E Black Mobile Phone and the 3^rd opposite party is the authorized service centre of the 1^st opposite party. The complainant placed an order on 14.05.2014 through the 2^nd opposite party web site under Ex.A1 to purchase the Moto Mobile on payment of Rs.7,089/- inclusive of tax. Ex.A2 is the confirmation order for the booking made by the complainant. Ex.A3 is the bill generated through the 2^nd opposite party for the purchase of the mobile and the complainant was delivered with the product on 15.05.2014.

          8. After two weeks of using the mobile, display started to deteriorate and hence the complainant contacted the 1^st opposite party call centre in turn on his direction contacted the 3^rd opposite party on 15.09.2014. The 3^rd opposite party issued Ex.A4 customer unity receipt and in which he had recorded display problem. However, the 3^rd opposite party demanded to repair only on payment even though the product is within the warranty period. Then the complainant contacted again the 1^st opposite party and in turn asked the complainant to contact the 3^rd opposite party and even after contacting the 3^rd opposite party, he refused to attend the repair. Hence the complainant sent Ex.A5 notice through e-mail and thereafter there was exchange of mails Ex.A6 to Ex.A9 between the complainant and the 1^st opposite party. The 1^st opposite party specifically stated in Ex.A7 mail to contact the service centre and however, the service centre refuses to attend the problem. Again in Ex.A9 the 1^st opposite party admitted that the complainant is facing display problem and suggested to visit nearest service centre once again. The 1^st opposite party repeatedly directed the complainant to go to 3^rd opposite party service centre to rectify the problem and however the 3^rd opposite party refused to attend the problem. Therefore as a manufacturer and service centre the opposite parties 1 & 3 failed to rectify the problem in the product purchased by the complainant and therefore, we hold the opposite parties 1 & 3 have committed deficiency in service.

          9. As for as 2^nd opposite party concerned, he is only  a market place enables the customers to purchase the various companies products  and accordingly on booking made by the complainant under Ex.A1, the product was delivered on the very next day and therefore, it is held that the 2^nd opposite party has not committed any deficiency in service.

10. POINT NO:2

          Since the opposite parties 1 & 3 as a manufacturer and service centre failed to rectify the product the complainant seeks to refund the cost of the mobile is accepted. Hence the opposite parties 1 & 3 may be directed to refund the cost of the mobile of Rs.7,089/- to the complainant. The opposite parties have failed to rectify the problem caused mental agony to the complainant is accepted and for the same a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards compensation, besides a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses.

 In the result the Complaint is partly allowed. The Opposite Parties 1 & 3 jointly or severally are ordered to refund a sum of Rs.7,089/- (Rupees seven thousand and eighty nine only) towards the cost of the mobile to the Complainant and the complainant shall simultaneously return the mobile to any one of the opposite parties 1 & 3 and  also to pay  a sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards the compensation for mental agony, besides a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards litigation expenses . The complaint in respect of the 2^nd opposite party is dismissed.

The above amount shall be paid to the complainant within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which the above said amount shall carry 9% interest till the date of payment.

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 23^rd day of November 2017.

 

MEMBER – I                                                                PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 14.05.2014                   Placing Order

Ex.A2 dated 14.05.2014                   Order Confirmation

Ex.A3 dated 14.05.2014                   Bill Details

Ex.A4 dated 15.09.2014                   Customer Unit Receipt

Ex.A5 dated 26.09.2014                   Serve the Notice by email

Ex.A6 dated 02.10.2014                   First Remainder Mail

Ex.A7 dated 02.10.2014                   First Response Mail

Ex.A8 dated 04.10.2014                   Second Remainder Mail

Ex.A9 dated 09.10.2014                   Second Response Mail

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE 2^nd OPPOSITE PARTY :

 

                                                …… NIL ……

 

 

 

MEMBER – I                                                               PRESIDENT