Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/176/2015

Pankaj Nanda - Complainant(s)

Versus

Apple India Private Lmited. - Opp.Party(s)

Devinder Kumar

11 Aug 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/176/2015
Date  of  Institution	:	20/03/2015
Date   of   Decision	:	11/08/2015

 

 

 

 

 

Pankaj Nanda son of Shri K.K. Nanda, resident of House No. 3365, Sector 15-D, Chandigarh.

….Complainant

Vs.

 

1.   Apple India Pvt. Limited, 19 Floor, Concorde Tower C, UB City No.24 Vittal Mallya Road, Bangalore 560001, through its Managing Director.

 

2.   Paramatrix Info Solutions Pvt. Limited, SCO No.112-113, Ground Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh, through its Manager/ Authorized Signatory.

 

3.   Croma Electronic Mega Store, SCO No.1094-1095, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh, through its Prop.

 

…… Opposite Parties

 

 

BEFORE:   MRS.SURJEET KAUR             PRESIDING MEMBER

          SH. SURESH KUMAR SARDANA     MEMBER

 

 

For Complainant	:	Sh. Devinder Kumar, Advocate
For OP No.1	:	Ex-parte
For OP No.2	:	Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate
For OP No.3	:	Ex-parte

 

PER SURJEET KAUR, PRESIDING MEMBER

 

 

 

          In brief, the Complainant had purchased one Apple iPhone 4G from Opposite Party No.3 on 16.6.2013 for Rs.26,500/- An old mobile of the same Company was given and the same was adjusted for Rs.10,000/- by the Opposite Party No.3. The mobile was having one year warranty (Retail invoice Annexure C-1). The aforesaid mobile time and again gave problem of hanging and switching off itself and speaker problem. The Complainant gave the mobile for repair on 15.2.2014 and the same was returned on the same day after repairs (Job-Sheet Annexure C-2). The mobile again gave some problem and it was given to Opposite Party No.3 on 3.6.2014 vide job sheet Annexure C-3. The mobile was returned to the Complainant after repairs. The Complainant was advised to approach Opposite Party No.2 as such he approached the Opposite Party No.2 on 8.6.2014 and the Opposite Party No.2 took the mobile of the Complainant for diagnosis and repair and issued a job sheet Annexure C-4. The Complainant thereafter visited the office of Opposite Party No.2 a number of times, but neither his mobile was repaired nor replaced and the mobile is still lying with the Opposite Party No.2 since 8.6.2014. The Complainant then duly served upon the Opposite Parties a legal notice dated 18.11.2014, but till date neither the Opposite Parties have repaired or replaced the mobile nor replied the said legal notice (Annexure C-5 to C-9). When all the frantic efforts made by the Complainant, failed to fructify, as a measure of last resort, alleging that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties tantamount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the Complainant has filed the instant Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, seeking various reliefs. 

  

2.     Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties, seeking their version of the case. However, since nobody appeared on behalf of Opposite Parties No.1 & 3 despite service, therefore, they were proceeded ex-parte on 30.04.2015 and 08.06.2015.  

 

3.     Opposite Party No.2 in its reply, while admitting the factual matrix of the case, has pleaded that immediately upon the receipt of the handset, the handset was properly inspected by the answering Opposite Party and thereafter, the matter was discussed with the Manufacturer for taking a call upon the repair, replacement or refund of the price of the mobile set as the Complainant claimed that the same has developed the defect during the warranty period. However, the Manufacturer i.e. Apple India Pvt. Limited had replaced the mobile set with new one and the same was lying with the answering Opposite Party but the Complainant did not turn up to collect the same even after various calls made by the answering Opposite Party. Denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service on its part, Opposite Party No.2 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

 

4.     Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record in support of their contentions.

 

5.     We have heard the learned Counsel for the Complainant and Opposite Party No.2 and perused the record with utmost care and circumspection, along with the written arguments filed on behalf of both the sides. 

 

6.     It is evident from Annexure C-1 the invoice, coupled with the affidavit of the Complainant that he purchased one Apple iPhone 4G for Rs.26,500/-. Annexure C-2 and C-3 are the two Service Order Receipts dated 15.2.2014 and 3.6.2014 respectively, vide which the handset in question was repaired by the Opposite Party No.3 within the warranty period. Annexure C-4 dated 8.6.2014 is another Service Report issued by the Opposite Party No.2 the Service Centre.

 

7.     The stand taken by Opposite Party No.2 (Service Centre) is that after taking the mobile of the Complainant, it discussed the matter with Opposite Party No.1 for the repair, replacement or refund of the price of the mobile handset in question as the Complainant claimed that the defect developed during the warranty period. It has been urged by Opposite Party No.2 that Opposite Party No.1 replaced the handset with a new one and is lying with it (OP No.2), but the Complainant did not turn up to collect the same even after various calls made by it.

 

8.     After scanning the entire file, it clearly emerged that Opposite Party No.2 has itself admitted that the replaced handset is still lying in its possession, but the Complainant failed to collect the same inspite of repeated requests. However, the Opposite Party No.2 has not placed on record any cogent/ authentic document with mention of its efforts that it actually informed the Complainant to collect the replaced handset from it. Since Opposite Party No.3 is only the Retailer and Opposite Party No.1 being the Manufacturer as a part of its obligation had already sent the replaced mobile handset to Opposite Party No.2, therefore, the Complaint stands dismissed qua Opposite Parties No.1 and 3 respectively.

 

 

9.     In these circumstances, the act of Opposite Party No.2 in keeping the replaced handset of the Complainant in its possession for a long time, clearly proves deficiency in service on its part, which certainly caused immense mental and physical harassment to the Complainant. 

 

10.     In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Party No.2 is deficient in giving proper service to the complainant and having indulged in unfair trade practice. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Party No.2, and the same is allowed, qua it. The Opposite Party No.2 is directed to:-

[a]  To hand over the brand new replaced mobile handset, received by it from the Manufacturer (Opposite Party No.1), to the Complainant forthwith;

 

[b]  To pay Rs.7,000/- as compensation for mental agony & harassment suffered by the complainant;

 

[c]  To pay Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation.

 

11.     The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Party No.2; thereafter, it shall be liable for an interest @12% p.a. on the amount mentioned in sub-para [b] above from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid, besides complying with the directions as in sub-para [a] and [c] above. 

 

12.     The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

11^th August, 2015                             

Sd/-

(SURJEET KAUR)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

(SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)

MEMBER