DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No. 478 of 20.12.2018

                                      Decided on:         25.1.2023

Amrinder Singh son of Gurnaib Singh, resident of village Alipur Jattan, Tehsil and District Patiala.

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1. Apple India Pvt. Ltd. No.24,19^th Floor, Concorde Tower-C,UB City, Vittal Malya Road, Banglore-560001, through its M.D.
2. Phone Zone-2, 22 No.Phatak, near Verma Bakers, Patiala, through its Prop.
3. Unicorn Infosolution Pvt. Ltd. 1^st Floor, Mittal Building, Bhupindra Road, Near Columbia Asia Hospital, Patiala through its Proprietor.

                                                                   …………Opposite Parties

Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act

QUORUM

                                      Hon’ble Mr. S.K.Aggarwal, President

                                      Hon’ble Mr. G.S.Nagi,Member        

PRESENT                     Sh.S.S.Aulakh, counsel for complainant.

                                      Sh.Vikram Sharma, counsel for OP No.1.

                                      OPs No.2&3 ex-parte.

 ORDER

1. The instant complaint is filed by Amrinder Singh (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against Apple India Pvt. Ltd. and others (hereinafter referred to as the OP/s) under the Consumer Protection Act ( for short the Act).
2. Brief facts of the complaint are as follows:

That on 12.10.2017 complainant purchased one mobile I Phone-6, 32 GB having No.SKU MQ3D2HN/A, bearing IMEI No.359220074945933 for Rs.23200/-from OP No.2 with the warranty of one year, in respect of any defect .In the last week of September,2018 said mobile started giving problems of hanging,heated up its own and dots have been appeared on the screen of the said phone. On 5.10.2018,complainant approached OP No.3,service centre of OPs No.1&2, who retained themobile phone with it for repair but on 12.10.2018, OP No.3 returned the mobile phone to the complainant without repair on the ground that the same is out of warranty, although the same was within warranty.The complainant alsosent legal notice to the OPs in this regard but of no use and as such the complainant is unable to use the mobile phone, there being manufacturing defect in the mobile phone. The complainant is also suffering from mental agony and harassment due to non repair/replacement of the mobile set. There is thus deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Consequently, prayer has been made for acceptance of the complaint.

3. Notice of the complaint was served upon the OPs. OP No.1 appeared through counsel and filed the written statement, whereas OPs No.2&3 failed to come present and were accordingly proceeded against ex-parte.
4. In the written statement filed by OP No.1 various preliminary objections have been raised. On merits, it is admitted that on 5.10.2018 complainant approached OP No.3 for repair of mobile set but service/replacement was refused as mobile phone was found damaged and returned to the complainant on 12.10.2018, it being out of warranty. All other averments made in the complaint have been denied and prayer has been made for dismissal of the same.
5. In support of his complaint, complainant furnished his affidavit,Ex.CA, copy of bill,Ex.C1, copy of legal notice,Ex.C2, postal receipts,Exs.C3 to C5, copy of delivery report,Ex.C6 and closed the evidence.
6. On the other hand, ld. counsel for OP No.1 tendered in evidence Ex.OPA, affidavit of Priyesh Poovanna, Country Legal counsel, Ex.OP1 copy of warranty card, Ex.OP2 coloured display of mobile (three pages),Ex.OP3 copy of delivery report and closed the evidence.
7. We have heard the ld. counsel for the contesting parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
8. After going through the record of the case, it transpires that the complainant purchased aforesaid mobile phone on 12-October-2017 for Rs.23,200/- vide tax invoice,Ex.C1.The mobile phone started giving problems.Complainant approached  OP No.3, service center of OPs No.1&2, on 5.10.2018 but it returned the mobile set without repairing the same, as is shown in the delivery report, Ex.C6. Complainant also sent legal notice,Ex.C2 upon the OPs through registered post vide postal receipts,Exs.C3 to C5. This fact has not been denied by the OPs. Further, as per the delivery note various defects were found in the hand set. As such we deem it appropriate to allow the complaint partly.
9. In view of our opinion, we allow the complaint partly and direct the OPs to replace the mobile phone in question with new one of the same model or to refund the price of the same to the complainant. The OPs are at liberty to take the possession of the old mobile set from the complainant. Parties are left to bear their own costs.  Compliance of the order be made by the OPs within 30 days from the date of the receipt of certified copy of this order.
10.           The instant complaint could not be disposed of within stipulated period due to heavy rush of work, Covid protocol and for want of Quorum from long time.
85109252238716.  
85109252238717.  

                                              G.S.Nagi                           S.K.AGGARWAL

                                              Member                          President