PRESENT

                   Complainant by Adv. Shri. Deepak Mane  present.                                                        

                  Opponent No. 1  Absent.                         

                   Opponent No. 2. Ex-parte.                        

ORDER

(Per- Mr. S. D. MADAKE, Hon’ble President. )

1.                The complainant purchased the mobile I phone No.55 16GB from opponent no.2 on 7-11-2014, who is authorized dealer of opponent no.1 Apple India Ltd. for a  sum of Rs.43,500/-.

2.                 The complainant alleged that said mobile came to be non-functional as same was not connecting with the sim card. He visited different authorized service centers of opponent no.1 however no solution was offered by opponents.

3.                 The complainant stated that he had to use another handset for his employment requirements leaving the present handset idle due to its non-functional status. He visited opponent no.2 on 18/03/2016 for ascertaining the issues in the instrument and found that no response was given even look into defects.

4.                 The complainant alleged that he took said handset to authorized service centers of opponent no.1 at BZX  Andheri  and was informed that they were unable to identify the exact nature of defect. He visited other service centres and also contacted senior advisor at the instance of opponent however no solution was found at all places.

5.                 The complainant alleged that on 23/03/2016 he was told that handset cannot be repaired and also replaced as warrant period has expired. He was advised to have handset replaced with a new one with a replacement cost of Rs.23,400/-.

6.                 The complainant stated that opposite parties failed to attend to the problems related to handset which has resulted in gross deficiency of service.

7.                 The complainant sent notice through Advocate on 21/07/2016 however no proper solution was made and cognizance was taken by both opponents. The complainant prayed for direction to opponents to refund cost of handset alongwith compensation of Rs.1,30,500/- with interest and cost to complainant. 

8.                 The complaint was filed on 14/10/2016 and was admitted on 19/10/2016. The opponent no.2 remained absent, though duly served hence order to proceed exparte was passed on 29/11/2016.

9.                 The opponent no.1 filed written statement and denied all the contents and averments. It is stated that the warranty is for one year from the date of purchase and complainant admitted having raised the issue after the expiry of warranty. The complainant never provided mobile for service or inspection during warranty.

10.               The opponent no.1 submitted that liability of manufacturer arises only when there is manufacturing defect duly proved by adducing expert evidence.

11.               We have perused all the documents filed on record. The complainant purchased “Iphone” mobile bearing no.55 16GB from Maple digital technology i.e. opponent no.2 authorized dealer of Appel India Pvt.Ltd. opponent  no.1 on 7-11-2014.

12.               The complainant claimed the refund of the price of mobile as well as compensation. There is no evidence to prove that there was inherent defect in the mobile. The complainant has not produced on record documents to prove that said mobile was repaired during warranty period.

13.               The complainant stated on Affidavit that in Sept.2015, there was complaint regarding the functioning of mobile. The mobile was not connecting with Sim card as indicated by Vishal who was working with opponent no.2.

14.               The complainant stated on affidavit that he visited different authorized centres of opponent no.1 for rectification however both opponents failed to render proper service. He stated on affidavit that he had to use another handset due to non-functioning of his mobile.

15.               The opponent no.2 was under an obligation to render after  sale service, however, failed to do so. The opponent no.1 which is a reputed company has to ensure that consumers get proper service after sale from the authorized dealers.

16.               In view of the facts we are of the opinion that opposite parties should take steps for examining and repairing the mobile and issue fresh warranty of one year.

17.              In the result, we pass the following order.

                                                O R D E R

1.       Complaint No. 95/2016 is partly allowed.

2.       The opponent parties are directed to examine and repair the I phone and issue warranty of one year within one month from the date

          of delivery by complainant to opponent no.2.

3.       No order as to cost.

4.       Copy of this order be sent to both parties.