Haryana

Ambala

CC/381/2021

Jasdeep Kohli - Complainant(s)

Versus

Appario Retail Pvt Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Shivam Jain

16 Jun 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

 

                                                          Complaint case No.:  381 of 2021.

                                                          Date of Institution :   13.12.2021.

                                                          Date of decision    :   16.06.2022.

 

Jasdeep Kohli son of Shri Nirmal Singh Kohli, resident of House No.1702/1 Kaith Majri, Ambala City.

……. Complainant.

                                                    Versus

 

1. Appario Retail Private Limited, Building No.5, BGR Warehousing Complex, Near Shiv Sagar Hotel, Village Vahuli, Bhiwandi, Thane, Bhiwandi Maharashtra, 421302, through its Managing Director
2. Managing Director of Appario Retail Private Limited, Building No.5, BGR Warehousing Complex, Near Shiv Sagar Hotel, Village Vahuli, Bhiwandi, Thane, Bhiwandi, Maharashtra, 421302.
3. Amazon, Brigade Gateway, 8^th Floor, 26/1, Dr. Raj Kumar Road, Malleshwaram (W), Banglore-560055, Karnataka through its Managing Director.
4. Managing Director of Amazon, Brigade Gateway, 8^th Floor, 26/1, Dr. Raj Kumar Road, Malleshwaram (W), Banglore-560055, Karnataka.
5. Apple, 19^th Floor Concorde Tower C, UB City No.24, Vital Mallya Road, Bangalore, Karnataka through its Managing Director.
6. Managing Director of Apple, 19^th Floor Concorde Tower C, UB City, No.24, Vittal Mallya Road, Bangalore, Karnataka.

 

                                                                   ….…. Opposite Parties.

 

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                   Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member.

Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.          

                            

Present:       Shri Shivam Jain, Advocate, counsel for the complainant.

OPs No.1 to 4 already ex parte.

Shri Rajiv Sachdeva, Advocate, counsel for the OPs No. 5 & 6.

 

ORDER:     Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.

 

                   Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) praying for issuance of following directions to them:-

1. To pay Rs.18,990/-, i.e the cost of the product and  Rs.50,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by him alongwith interest @ 18% per annum.
2. To pay the litigation expenses.

                  

 

2.                Brief facts of the case are that the complainant booked the order with the OP No.3, to supply the Apple Airpods Pro B07ZRXF7M8 Serial No.SGX9D9PAELKKT, manufactured by OP No.5. The said Air pods Pro was sold by OP No.1 and complainant paid Rs.18,990/- through credit card on 31.10.2021, and invoice dated 31.10.2021, were raised and the same was delivered on 02.11.2021, at his premises. After receiving the delivery, complainant opened the parcel pack and put the Apple Airpods Pro in use but same were found defective. Complainant approached the Service Station of the Apple, at Ambala City but the Incharge of the Apple Service Station returned the same without repairing it with the remarks that on physical check it was found that the device is Non-Apple Product and could not provide services. By not supplying the Apple Airpods Pro, the OPs have not only committed deficiency in service but are also indulged into unfair trade practice. Hence, the present complaint.

3.                Upon notice, none appeared on behalf of the OPs No.1 to 4 before this Commission, therefore, they were proceeded against ex-parte vide orders dated 07.02.2022 and 30.03.2022.

4.                Upon notice, the OPs No.5 and 6 appeared through counsel and filed written version raising preliminary objections with regard to clean hands and suppressed the material and true facts etc. On merits, it is stated that OP No.5 is the manufacturer of the Air Pods Pro. In the present case, complainant purchased Air Pods from OP No.3, which were not original. The Air pods purchased by the complainant from the OP no.1, through OP No.3, are fake and not manufactured by the OP No.5. The answering OPs have no privity of contract with the other OPs. As the fake product sold by the OP No.3 to the complainant, thus he is not a consumer qua the answering OPs.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs No.5 and 6 and the complaint filed by the complainant against them, may be dismissed with costs.                            

5.       The learned counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of complainant as Annexure CA & CB alongwith documents as Annexure C1 to C4 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs No.5 and 6 tendered affidavit of Prateek Hiremath son of Gangadharayya B Hiremath, Aged Major, Senior Legal Counsel, Apple India Pvt. Ltd., 19^th Floor, Concorde Tower C, UB City No.24, Vittal Mallya Road, Bangaluru-56001 as Annexure RA alongwith documents as Annexure R1 & R2 and closed the evidence on behalf of the OPs No.5 & 6.

6.       We have heard the learned counsel of the complainant and learned counsel for the OPs No.5 & 6 and carefully gone through the case file.

7.       The learned counsel for the complainant reiterated the version as narrated in the complaint and prayed for allowing the present complaint.

8.                Similarly, the learned counsel for the OPs No.5 and 6 reiterated the version as mentioned in their written version and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

9.                Annexure C-1 is tax invoice/bill of supply/cash memo dated 31.10.2021, vide which the complainant online purchased the Apple Airpods Pro from the OP No.3, manufactured by OP No.5. On 02.11.2021, after receiving the packet from the delivery boy, he opened the same and found that product was defective. Complainant approached the Service Station of the Apple, at Ambala City several times to resolve the defects in Airpods Pro and the said fact is also clear from the e-mail dated 28.11.2021 (Annexure C-4). The contention of the OPs No.5 and 6 is that the Apple Airpods Pro purchased by complainant was not original and not manufactured by them. However, to prove this fact, the OPs No.5 and 6 have not produced any cogent and convincing evidence. The OPs No.1 to 4, were proceeded against ex parte. The contentions of the complainant went un-rebutted as the OPs No.1 to 4 inspite of service of the notice has preferred not to appear before this Commission. Meaning thereby, OPs No.1 to 4 have nothing to say in his defence, and thus, we have no reason to not to believe the contention of the complainant, which is duly supported by his affidavit and other supporting documents. Under these circumstances, we are of the view that the OPs are liable to pay the cost of the Apple Airpods Pro i.e Rs.18,990/- and they are also liable to pay the compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant alongwith litigation expenses.

10.          In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hereby allow the present complaint and OPs jointly and severally are directed in the following manner:-

(i) To pay Rs.18,990/-, i.e cost of the Apple Airpods Pro, to the complainant

(ii) To pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation for the mental agony & physical harassment suffered by the complainant alongwith litigation expenses.  

 

                   The OPs are further directed to comply with the aforesaid directions within the period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

Announced on :16.06.2022.

 

 

 

          (Vinod Kumar Sharma)            (Ruby Sharma)     (Neena Sandhu)

              Member                                   Member             President