Consumer Commission Holds Motorola Liable
A consumer commission in Srinagar has directed Motorola to refund the cost of a smartphone and pay ₹52,000 in compensation after a delivery executive claimed the company’s advertised underwater protection feature failed during normal use. The commission held that the advertisements created misleading expectations and amounted to unfair trade practices.
Phone Developed Fault After Water Test
The complainant purchased a Motorola Edge 40 in 2023 after seeing advertisements highlighting its IP68 underwater protection. Working as a delivery executive, he wanted a phone that could withstand rain and wet weather. To verify the advertised feature, he tested the device in water, following the specifications promoted by the company. Soon after, the smartphone developed faults caused by liquid damage.
Warranty Claim Rejected
After reporting the issue, Motorola directed the customer to an authorised service centre. The centre informed him that the phone had suffered liquid damage and that repairs would only be carried out on a paid basis. The customer repeatedly requested a refund, arguing that the device failed despite being used in line with the advertised waterproof claims, but the company declined his request.
Commission Rejects Company’s Defence
Motorola argued that the phone was water-resistant and not waterproof, and that liquid damage was excluded from warranty coverage. However, the commission observed that the company’s advertisements prominently highlighted underwater protection and could reasonably lead consumers to believe the phone could survive limited submersion. It concluded that the marketing claims were misleading.
Refund And Compensation Awarded
The commission ordered Motorola to refund the smartphone’s purchase price of ₹27,058. It also directed the company to pay ₹50,000 as compensation for mental agony, harassment and financial loss, along with ₹2,000 towards litigation costs. The ruling reinforces that companies must ensure their advertisements accurately reflect real-world product performance and cannot escape liability through warranty clauses alone.
Summary
A Srinagar consumer commission ordered Motorola to refund a customer’s smartphone cost and pay ₹52,000 in compensation after its advertised underwater protection failed during use. The ruling held that the company’s marketing created misleading expectations, reinforcing that manufacturers can be held accountable when promotional claims do not match a product’s actual performance.
