Haryana

StateCommission

A/57/2017

SACHIN TYAGI - Complainant(s)

Versus

AI COMMUNICATION - Opp.Party(s)

INDERJIT SINGH

03 Mar 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

                                                First Appeal No.           57 of 2017

                                                Date of Institution:       17.01.2017

                                                Date of Decision:         03.03.2017

 

Sachin son of Sh. Subhash Tyagi, resident of 524, Kailash Bhawan, Gobindpuri, Yamuna Nagar.

                             Appellant-Complainant

 

Versus

 

1.      AI Communications, 227, Chotti Line, Near GNG College Road, Model Town, Yamuna Nagar through its proprietor/partner.

 

2.      Infotech Computers and Communcation, SCO 204, Sector 12, Urban Estate, Karnal -132001 through its proprietor/partner.

3.      Paramatrix Info Solution, SCO 112-113, Sector 34A, Chandigarh through its proprietor/partner.

4.      Apple India Private Limited, 19^th Floor, Concorde Tower ‘C’, UB City No.24, Vittal Mallya Road, Bangalore -560001, Karnataka State through its Managing Director.

                                      Respondents-Opposite Parties

 

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Mr. Balbir Singh, Judicial Member.

                             Mr. Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member.

 

                                                         

Present:              Mr. Pankaj Sharma, Advocate for the appellant     

           

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J, (ORAL)

 

This complainant’s appeal is directed against the order dated December 20^th, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Yamuna Nagar (for short, ‘District Forum’) whereby complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, was partly allowed.  Operative part of the order is reproduced as under:-

“14.   Resultantly, in the circumstances noted above, we partly allow the complaint of complainant and direct the opposite party No.4 to pay a sum of Rs.6000/- as compensation for mental agony, harassment and financial loss suffered by the complainant for visiting the service centre at Chandigarh as well as Karnal and further to pay a sum of Rs.2000/- as litigation expenses.  Complaint against qua opposite parties No.1 to 3 is hereby dismissed.  Order be complied within a period of 30 days after preparation of copy of this order failing which the complainant shall be entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum as per law...….”  

         

2.      On December 12^th, 2014 Sachin Tyagi-complainant purchased mobile phone- iPhone 6 Apple make from AI Communications, Yamuna Nagar-opposite party No.1 for Rs.53,500/-.  After a few days, the complainant noticed some defects in the mobile handset.  He approached opposite parties.  After getting it repaired, opposite parties No.1 and 2 returned the mobile handset to the complainant but the problem still persisted.  By filing the complaint against the opposite parties before the District Forum, he prayed for refund of Rs.53,500/-, that is, the cost of mobile handset; Rs.30,000/- as compensation and Rs.1000/- cost of proceedings.

3.      The complaint was partly accepted by the District Forum and issued direction to the opposite party No.4 as mentioned in paragraph No.1 of this order.

4.      Dissatisfied with the order of the District Forum, the complainant has come up in appeal for enhancement of compensation.

5.      It is not in dispute that the complainant noticed some defects in the mobile handset during warranty period. The opposite parties No.1 and 2 removed the defects by replacing the defective parts vide job sheets and delivery reports (Annexure R-1 to R-4).  There was no justification to refund the price of the mobile handset as prayed by the complainant. The District Forum vide impugned order directed the opposite party No.4 to pay Rs.6000/- as compensation and Rs.2000/- litigation expenses to the complainant. This being so, the complainant has been adequately compensated and as such, no case for interference in the impugned order is made out. The appeal is therefore dismissed.

 

 

Announced 03.03.017

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(Balbir Singh) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

UK