Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 419.
Instituted on : 20.07.2017.
Decided on : 11.10.2018.
Akriti Gupta age 25 years D/o Sh. Sanjeev R/o H.No.53, Vikas Nagar, Rohtak.
.......................Complainant.
Vs.
- Aneja Mobile Ghar, Opp. Myna Tourist Complex, Delhi Road, Rothak, through its Proprietor.
- B2X Service Salutation India Pvt. Ltd., 2nd Floor 201, DLF City Centre, Near M.G.Metro Station, Gurgaon through its Manager/Director.
- Apple India Pvt. Ltd. No.24, 19th Floor Concorde Tower-C, UB City, Vittal Mallya Road, Bangalore through its Manager/Director.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
SMT.SAROJ BALA BOHRA, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.Kamal Arora, Adv. for complainant.
Opposite party No.1 exparte.
Sh.Sameer Gambhir Adv. for OP No.2.
Sh.Kunal Juneja Advocate for opposite party No.3.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that complainant had purchased a mobile phone on dated 04.02.2017 from the opposite party No.1 for a sum of Rs.57000/-. That from the very beginning the said mobile is not working properly and it is having battery issue, screen freeze and hanging is major problem and problem in software also. That complainant deposited the mobile with the opposite No.2 on dated 09.05.2017 but after some time they return the mobile set on the plea that their computer was not working. That complainant requested the opposite parties to replace the mobile set as the problems occurred again and again but the opposite parties refused to replace the same. That complainant contacted the service centre on 10.06.2017 and also sent an email to OPs on 03.07.2017 but no response. That there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs. As such, it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed either to replace the mobile set or to refund the price of same alongwith interest, compensation and cost of litigation as explained in relief clause.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite parties No.1 did not appear despite service and was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 05.09.2017 of this Forum. Opposite party No.2 in its reply has submitted that the phone was deposited by the complainant on 09.05.2017 to the service centre for the issue of hanging only but the same was returned due to computer fault. But on the request of complainant, software was updated. That no hardware issue was found in the said handset and the problem was resolved by the OP no.2 by installing the new OS/software. That no complaint was received on 03.07.2017. That the complainant wants the replacement of the said handset which cannot be possible according to the terms and conditions of the respondent no.3 unless and until any default was there or any hardware problem was there. It is prayed that complaint may kindly be dismissed with costs.
3. Opposite party No.3 in its reply has submitted that there was an issue with the software which was rectified and after rectifying the said issue, the iphone was working normally and there was no hardware issue found in the said handset. That there was no defect in the said iphone as alleged by the complainant and till date she has been successfully using the said iPhone. There is no expert evidence provided by the complainant to show that iPhone was defective. The complainant has deliberately concealed these facts to attain undeserving benefits from OP No.3. There is no deficiency on the part of answering OP and dismissal of complaint has been sought.
4. Ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C4 and closed his evidence. On the other hand, ld. counsel for OP No.2 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW2/A, document Ex. Ex.RW2/1 to Ex.RW2/5 and closed his evidence. Ld. counsel for OP No.3 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW3/A, documents Ex.R3/1 to Ex.R3/2 and closed his evidence.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
6. Perusal of the documents reveals that as per job sheet Ex.C2 dated 09.05.2017 there was problem of hanging in the mobile set which appeared only within three months of purchase during warranty period and as per Ex.C3, problem again appeared on 15.06.2017. But the OPs have failed to remove the defect within warranty period. Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs and they are liable to refund the price of mobile set alongwith interest and compensation.
7. Accordingly the complaint is allowed and we hereby direct the opposite party No.3 i.e. manufacturer to refund the price of Rs.57000/-(Rupees fifty seven thousand only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 20.07.2017 till its realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.3000/-(Rupees three thousand only) as compensation and Rs.2000/-(Rupees two thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision. However, complainant is also directed to hand over the mobile in question to the OP No.3/service centre at the time of payment by the OP No.3.
8. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.
9. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
11.10.2018.
.....................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Ved Pal Hooda, Member.
……………………………….
Saroj Bala Bohra, Member
