Jammu and Kashmir

Jammu

CC/424/2017

DAPINDER PAL SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

APLLE INDIA - Opp.Party(s)

DEEPALI ARORA

14 Mar 2018

ORDER

         DISTRICTCONSUMERDISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,JAMMU

      (Constituted under J&K Consumer Protection Act,1987)

 

 Case File No.                 265/DFJ                

 Date of  Institution    01-10-2016              

 Date of Decision        05-03-2018

 

Dapinder Pal Singh

S/O Rabinder Singh Bijral,

R/O Sainik Colony,Jammu.

                                                                                                                                                Complainant

              V/S

1. Apple India Private Ltd.19 Floor,

19^th Floor,Concorde Tower C,U.B.City,

   N024,Vittal Mallya Road,

 Banglore-560001 through its Director.

2.Shivam Communication

  Last Morh Opp.Khosla Provision Store

  Gandhi Nagar,Jammu,

3.F1 Info Solution and Services Pvt.Ltd.

  Chahal Complex,168-A,Sec-1,

  Railway Road Gandhi Nagar,Extn.Nanak Nagar,

Jammu through its Authorised Signatory.

 

                                                                                                      Opposite parties

 

CORAM

                  Khalil Choudhary    (Distt.& Sessions Judge)   President

                   Ms.Vijay Angral                                                       Member

                  Mr.Ghulam Sarwar Chauhan                               Member

 

In the matter of  Complaint under section 10 of J&K Consumer

                              Protection Act 1987.

 

Mrs.Deepali Arora,Advocate for complainant, present.

Mr.Arvind Khajuria,Advocate for OP1,present.

Mr.Sushant Samnotra,Advocate for OP3,present.

Nemo for OP2.

                         

ORDER

 

                                 Facts relevant for the disposal of complaint on hand are that complainant said to have purchased an Apple IPhone 6(16GB) from OP2,for a sale consideration of Rs.42,900/-on,05-10-2015,copy of bill is annexed as (Annexure-A),however, after purchasing the handset within few weeks, the handset did not work properly and it started causing a number of problems/defects like black patches on the display and hanging problem. Complainant approached Ops who advised him to approach service centre of Ops ,complainant approached OP3 ,who after minor repairs handed over the handset to complainant, but the complainant was not satisfied as the defects were still there. Allegation of complainant is that he approached Ops time and again and the Ops assured him that the matter has been brought to  the notice of company, but all in vain Allegation of complainant is that OPs, manufactured defective handset and OPs failed to provide after sale service,therefore,same constitutes deficiency in service. In the final analysis, complainant prays for refund of price of handset alongwith interest @ 18% per annum and in addition, prays for compensation under different heads to the tune of Rs.60,000/-.

             On the other hand OP1 in his objections has stated while taking the main objection that the said Iphone was purchased from OP2 and OP1 are manufacturers of Iphone,however,in the present case it is pertinent to mention that the Iphone in question was sold by OP2 who is not an authorized reseller of OP1.OP1 is not responsible in any manner for the sale of said iphone as OP1 has not authorized to sell the iphone in question directly or indirectly under its supervision. Lastly it is prayed that the complaint may be dismissed.

                    At the same time,OP3 filed written version and totally denied the allegations in toto.

                      The complainant adduced evidence by way of duly sworn his own affidavit and affidavit of Rabinder Singh.The complainant has placed on record copy of retail invoice.

                       OP1 adduced evidence by way of duly sworn affidavit of Priyesh Poovanna Country Legal Counsel Apple India Ltd.

              At the same time,OP3 adduced evidence by way of duly sworn evidence affidavit of Rahul Kumar Branch Incharge of OP3.

                   In rebuttal OP3 has produced affidavit of Rahul Kumar Branch Incharge FI Info Solution & Services Pvt.Ltd.

                 We have perused case file and heard L/Cs for the parties at length.

                          To be brief, grievance of complainant is that he purchased handset from OP1, of Apple make for sum of Rs.42,900/-on, 05-10-2015,and,within warranty period, same was marred by defects. Further allegation of complainant is that despite handset was being taken to OP3,but OP3 failed to rectify the defects, which were manufacturing defects in nature.

                    On the other hand, OPs,while denying the allegations of complainant in toto,went onto submit that handset has been duly rectified by service engineer of OPs,therefore,allegations of complainant are unfounded and are designed to extract money.

                        In order to support his allegations, complainant has filed duly sworn his own affidavit and affidavit of Rabinder Singh. At the same time, complainant also produced bill dated 05-10-2015 for sum of Rs.42,900/-.

                     The complaint is fully supported by the affidavit of complainant and affidavit of Rabinder Singh,so in the given circumstances of the case, and in view of evidence on record, there is no reason to disbelieve the averments made by complainant in complaint.

                 From perusal of averments contained in the complaint, it is manifestly clear that from the very beginning, handset started giving trouble,whereas,despite repeated requests to Ops the handset could not be

made  workable,therefore,in our opinion once high-end hand set purchased by complainant,obviously,without any rhyme or reason, question of grouse, regarding fault of handset would not have arisen, instead of making use of it. Rather we think Ops should have redressed grievance of complainant, who spent such huge money and banked upon such multinational brand, but it seems that instead of well coming the consumer,Ops have chosen to multiply  suffering, which of course is unwarranted and unexpected from such brand. Therefore, in the light of unrebutted averments contained in the complaint and documents on record, we are of the opinion that complainant successfully made out a case of deficiency in service by Ops.

                   Therefore, in view of aforesaid discussion, the complaint filed by the complainant for redressal of his grievance is allowed and Ops are jointly and severally directed to refund cost of handset to the tune of Rs.42,900/- to complainant, who shall return the mobile phone, alongwith accessories to the opposite parties. The Ops shall comply the order jointly and severally, within six weeks, from the date of receipt of this order. Copy of this order be provided to parties, free of costs. The complaint is accordingly, disposed of and file be consigned to records after its due compilation.

Order per President                                              Khalil Choudhary

                                                                         (Distt.& Sessions Judge)

Announced                                                              President

 05 -03-2018                                                   District Consumer Forum

Agreed by                                                                Jammu.

 

Ms.Vijay Angral          

Member        

 

Mr.Ghulam Sarwar Chauhan

Member