The Manager,Motorola Authorised Service Centre V/S Nitin Kumar Dubey
Nitin Kumar Dubey filed a consumer case on 30 May 2017 against The Manager,Motorola Authorised Service Centre in the Cuttak Consumer Court. The case no is CC/2/2015 and the judgment uploaded on 10 Sep 2017.
Orissa
Cuttak
CC/2/2015
Nitin Kumar Dubey - Complainant(s)
Versus
The Manager,Motorola Authorised Service Centre - Opp.Party(s)
Self
30 May 2017
ORDER
IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,CUTTACK.
C.C No.02/2015
NIUTIL KUMAR DUB EY
BSL,NARENDRAPUR,
PO:KUSUPANGA,MERAMANDALI
DHENKANAL,ORISSA-759121. .… Complainant.
Vrs.
The MANAGER,
MOTOROLA AUTHORIZED SERVICE CENTRE
CHANANEL-4,SINGH PLAZA,
DOLAMUNDAI,BESIDE KEDARSON,
CUTTACK
THE MANAGER
SMART SERVICE,SCR 15/E (666)
BAPUJEE NAGAR,NEAR KALI MANDIR,
BHUBANESWAR
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
415/2,MEHRAULI GURGAON ROAD,
SECTOR 14 GURGAON-122001,
HARYANA. … Opp. Parties.
Present: Sri Dhruba Charan Barik,President.
Sri Bichitrananda Tripathy, Member.
Smt. Sarmistha Nath, Member (W).
Date of filing: 06.01.2015
Date of Order: 30.05.2017
For the complainant : Self.
For the O.Ps. : None.
Smt. Sarmistha Nath,Member(W).
The complainant has filed this complaint before this Forum against the O.Ps for Redressal of his grievances under the Consumer Protection Act,1986(Act in short) in terms of his prayer made in the complaint petition. The case of the complainant in brief is that he purchased a Motorola G Mobile set from the online portal of Flip kart and made a payment of Rs.13,699/- towards the cost of the set. (Annexure-I & II). After three months of purchase the set5 developed problem. The complainant filed a complaint before the O.ps for replacement of the set. The O.ps asked him to visit the office of O.P No.1. On his visit the executive of the O.P No.1 after inspecting the set asked him to submit the set. After few hours, the complainant received a call from the office of O.P No.1 and he was informed that the set is dead as water gushed into it. When the complainant objected, he was asked to visit another service centre (copy of job sheet attached as Annexure-III). The complainant visited the service centre of O.P No.2, where he was informed that since the set was damaged due to water, its repair would cost Rs.7000/-. But the complainant refused to pay as it was within warranty period. When the complainant demanded for the job sheet, he was assured that it will be sent to him through mail but did not sent it in spite of repeated calls and Mails from his end. So, the complainant prayed for a direction to the O.Ps either to replace the set or refund the amount of Rs.16,000/- as well as Rs.20,000/- towards mental agony suffered by the complainant and litigation cost of Rs.1000/-.
The O.Ps neither appeared nor filed their written version.
We have heard the complainant at length and went through the documents and papers filed by the complainant. From the documents submitted by the complainant, it is found that the complainant has purchased the set and when defect was detected, he has consulted in the service centre but they did not co-operate rather demanded huge amount for repair of the set, even if it was within the warranty period.
In view of the above discussion, the O.Ps are found deficient in rendering service which amounts to unfair trade practice by the respondents.
ORDER
The O.Ps are directed to replace the default mobile set by a new one. The O.Ps will also to pay Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and a sum of Rs.1000/- towards litigation cost.
Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by the Hon’ble Member in the Open Court on this the 30th day of May,2017 under the seal and signature of this Forum.
( Smt. Sarmistha Nath )
Member (W) (Sri D.C.Barik)
President.
(Sri B.N.Tripathy )
Member
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.