Ashish Gupta filed a consumer case on 16 Aug 2018 against Apple India Pvt Ltd. in the Ambala Consumer Court. The case no is CC/421/2017 and the judgment uploaded on 25 Oct 2018.
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AMBALA
Complaint case no. : 421 of 2017
Date of Institution : 30.11.2017
Date of decision : 16.08.2018
Ashish Gupta, son of Sh. Rakesh Gupta, resident of House no.606, Sector-8, Ambala City.
……. Complainant.
1. Apple India Pvt Ltd. No.24, 19th Floor, Concorde Tower, U B City Vitta Marlya Road, Banglore, through its authorities signatory (560001)
2. Saya Network, shop no.-30B, Building No.30, Jain Nagar, OPP. Airtel Office, Ambala City, through its authorized signatory.
….…. Opposite Parties.
Before: Sh. D.N.Arora, President.
Sh. Pushpender Kumar, Member.
Present: Sh. Anupam Sharma, counsel for complainant.
OP No.2 already ex parte v.o.d. 18.01.2018.
Sh. Rajiv Sachdeva, counsel for Op No.1.
ORDER:
In nutshell, brief facts of the present complaint is that the complainant vide invoice no. Imp/ACity/112 dated 09.08.2017, purchased Apple Phone6 (32) Grey 359220074251019, SF18V34FKHXR5 1PMQ3D2HN/A, HSN.SAC No.85171290, for a sum of Rs. 19,96.43 from the OP No.2 being the authorized dealer of Apple phone and the OP no.2 issued above said invoice by charging CGST Rs. 1,151.79, CGST Rs. 1511.79 total amounting to Rs. 21,500/- and the complainant made the payment of above said good through credit card of his father namely Sh. Rakesh Kumar Gupta and when the complainant received information/details from the concerned bank i.e. HDFC Bank, it is revealed that the OP No.2 wrongly and unlawfully charged Rs. 22500/- instead of actual amount of Rs. 21500/-. At the time of handing over the delivery of Cell phone as well as issuing Invoice, the OP No.2 gave in writing that accessory worth Rs. 1000/- is pending and the same will be delivered/handed over to the complainant after receiving the same from OP No.1. After receiving the details from the bank, the complainant approached the OP No.2 and apprized him as to why he has charged Rs. 22500/- instead of actual amount of Rs. 21500/- upon which the OP No.2 assured the complainant that after checking his record, he will refund the same and he further assured the complainant that till now he has not received the assured accessory from the OP No.1 and he will deliver/handed over the due accessory as well as refund the extra amount of Rs. 1000/- within a period of a week. Since that day the complainant had been repeatedly requesting the Ops to refund the extra amount of Rs. 1000/- as well as to deliver/handed over the due accessory, but the Ops remained putting off the complainant on one pretext or the other. The complainant also served the OPs with a legal notice dated 15.09.2017. Because of the attitude of OPs, complainant has to harass and suffered mental, physical and monetary loss. Hence, the present complaint.
2. Registered notice issued to Op No.2 but none has turned up on his behalf and he was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 18.01.218. Upon notice, OP No.1 appeared through counsel and filed written statement submitting that the complainant purchased the said iPhone 5S bearing IMEI No.359220074251019 from OP No.2 on 9-8-2017. The reseller had agreed to provide the accessory to the complainant worth Rs. 1,000/- to which the complainant agree. It is pertinent to mention that it is not within the knowledge of OP No.1 about the conversation which took place between the OP No.2 and the complainant. So, there is no deficiency on the part of OP No.1 and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.
3 To prove his version complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure C-A along with documents as annexure C-1 and C-7 and close his evidence. On the other hand, Counsel for the OP No.1 tendered affidavit as Annexure R-X alongwith documents as Annexure R-1 to R-2 and close his evidence.
4. We have heard both the counsel of the parties and carefully gone through the case file.
5. It is proved on the file that the complainant has purchase Apple Phone6(32) Grey 359220074251019, SF18V34FKHXR5 1PMQ3D2HN/A, HSN.SAC No.85171290 of Rs. 21,500/- vide invoice Imp/ACity/112 dated 09.08.2017. From the perusal of the invoice that the dealer has not provided the accessory to the complainant which is amounting Rs. 1,000/- as mentioned in the Bill Annexure C-2. It is also proved on the file that OP No.2 has received Rs. 22,500/- through credit card and amount has been deducted as per Annexure C-1 i.e. receipt issued by the HDFC Bank. In this way, Op No.1/dealer has wrongly withheld the accessory of amounting Rs. 1,000/- and also received the excess amount Rs. 1,000/- more than invoice amount. In the present case, the OP No.2 has also proceeded against ex-parte, therefore, the contents enumerated in the complaint remained un-rebutted and thus we have no other option except to believe the version as well as documents submitted by the complainant.
5. In view of above discussion, the present complaint is hereby allowed with cost which is assessed Rs. 2,000/- against OP No.2 and Op No.2 is also directed to pay amount Rs. 2,000/- on account of not giving the accessory and receiving the excess amount more than invoice amount with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of complaint till its realization. Order of this Forum be complied within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Copy of the order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File after due compliance be consigned to record room.
Announced on:16.08.2018
(PUSHPENDER KUMAR) (D.N. ARORA)
Member President
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.