Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/350/2017

Hardeep Bhalla - Complainant(s)

Versus

Apple India Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Gaurav Bhardwaj

18 Jan 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

 

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/350/2017
Date of Institution	:	25/04/2017
Date of Decision	:	18/01/2018

 

Hardeep Bhalla R/o #35, Mamta Enclave, Zirakpur, District Mohali.

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

 

[1]     Apple India Private Ltd., 19 Floor, Concorde Tower C, U.B. City No.24 Vittal Mallya Road, Bangalore 560-001, through its Managing Director.

 

[2]     Unicorn Info Solutions Pvt. Ltd., SCO 315-316, Ground Floor, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh, through its Manager/ Auth. Signatory.

 

[3]     Chirag Communication, SCO 45, CANAM Plaza, Cabin No.224 (Basement), Sector 11, Panchkula, through its Proprietor.

…… Opposite Parties

 

QUORUM:	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	PRESIDING MEMBER
	SH.SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Counsel for Complainant.
		Sh. Devinder Kumar, Counsel for Opposite Party No.1
		Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 ex-parte.

                       

PER SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, MEMBER

1.         Sh. Hardeep Bhalla, Complainant has preferred this Consumer Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against M/s Apple India Pvt. Ltd. and Others (hereinafter called the Opposite Parties), alleging that he had purchased one Apple iPhone 7 from Opposite Party No.3 (Chirag Communication) on 19.12.2016 for Rs.60,000/- vide bill Annexure C-1. On 04.04.2017 owing to charging cable problem, the Complainant visited the Opposite Party No.2 (Unicorn Info Solutions Pvt. Ltd.), who checked the handset and informed that the length of the Cable was short as compared to the original and returned the handset and cable to him (Service Report & Delivery Report Annexure C-2 & C-3). Thereafter, the Complainant contacted the Opposite Party No.3, who directed him to contact Toll Free number of Opposite Party No.1. The Complainant accordingly contacted the Toll Free number of Opposite Party No.1 and he was told to get the Cable replaced from Opposite Party No.3, but Opposite Party No.3 refused to replace the same. Thereafter, on 19.04.2017 due to unexpected shut down, overheating and hanging issues, the Complainant deposited the handset with Opposite Party No.2 for repairs vide service report Annexure C-4. The Complainant was told by Opposite Party No.2 that Opposite Party No.1 had confirmed that the Cable was duplicate and the Complainant should raise his grievance with Opposite Party No.3. It has been alleged that on approaching Opposite Party No.3, it gave the answer that if anything duplicate was there in the sealed box sold by it, then Opposite Party No.1 is liable. Hence, alleging the aforesaid act and conduct of the Opposite Parties as deficiency in service and indulgence into unfair trade practice, the Complainant have preferred the present Complaint.     
2.         Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case. However, despite service, nobody has appeared on behalf of Opposite Parties No.2 & 3, therefore, they were proceeded against exparte.
3.         In its written reply, Opposite Party No.1 has pleaded that Complainant visited the Opposite Party No.2 on 4.4.2017 with the issue lightening cable is not working. On checking the cable was found to be short in length as compared to known good KGB cable. Also, the serial number of the cable was not visible/ readable so the service was declined and the cable was returned to the Complainant.  Thereafter, on 19.04.2017 the Complainant submitted the device alleging issues of ‘Unexpected shutdown, overheating, hanging intermittently. On checking the device, no such issue was found by Opposite Party No.2 and Complainant was informed regarding the same on 21.4.2017 (Annexure R-2). Despite knowing the fact that the iPhone is working perfectly alright the Complainant had refused to collect it from the Opposite Party No.2. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, Opposite Party No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
5.         We have gone through the entire evidence, written arguments submitted by the Complainant as well as Opposite Party No.1 and heard the arguments addressed by the Ld. Counsel for the Complainant and Opposite Party No.1 (Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 being ex-parte). 
6.         The Opposite Party No.1 in its version has admitted that the cable of the mobile handset has not been manufactured by it and is a fake one.  Importantly, the Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 did not appear to contest the claim of the complainant, and preferred to proceed against ex-parte. This act of the Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 draws an adverse inference against them. The non-appearance of the Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 shows that they have nothing to say in their defence against the allegations made by the complainant. Therefore, the assertions of the complainant go unrebutted & uncontroverted. At any rate, from a bare perusal of Annexures C-2 to C-4, which are copies of delivery report/service reports, it is evident that the Complainant is the ultimate sufferer, as it was for Opposite Party No.2 & 3 alone to rebut the allegations of the Complainant but they preferred to proceed ex-parte and did not appear before this Forum. It is thus legitimately proved that Opposite Party No.3 has sold a mobile with fake accessory (Cable) to the Complainant, which fact has also been confirmed by Opposite Party No.2. Despite having knowledge of the entire developments, the action of the Opposite Party No.3 in not promptly replacing the fake accessory with a new and genuine one, to our mind, tantamounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on its part. Undoubtedly, the Complainant had spent an amount of Rs.60,000/- to purchase the mobile handset in question having faith in the brand to facilitate himself and not for moving the Service Centre and then to this Forum for justice in the absence of proper service provided by the Opposite Parties. In our opinion due to the irresponsible attitude of the Opposite Parties No.2 & 3, the Complainant has certainly suffered a lot. We feel that it was the duty of the Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 to satisfy the Complainant by getting his fake accessory (Cable) replaced with a new and genuine, promptly, but they have miserably failed to do so. The handset in dispute is stated to be lying with Opposite Party No.2 since 19.04.2017. Therefore, the act of the Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 in not replacing the fake accessory (cable) of the mobile handset in question, proves deficiency in service on their part, which certainly has caused immense, mental and physical harassment to the complainant.
7.         In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 are found 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 Parties No.2 and 3, and the same is allowed, qua them. The Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 are jointly and severally directed:-

[i]      Opposite Party No.3 shall provide an authentic/genuine cable of the handset (iPhone 7 32 GB) to the Complainant, free of cost, without charging anything;

[ii]     Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 shall pay Rs.2500/- each as compensation to the complainant for the unfair trade practice and harassment caused to him, along with Rs.2500/- each as cost of litigation;

                The complaint against Opposite Party No.1 fails and is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. 

8.      This order be complied with by Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which they shall make the payment of the amount mentioned at Sr.No.(ii) above, with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr. No.(i) above.
9.         Since the mobile handset in question is lying with Opposite Party No.2 since 19.4.2017 and is in perfect working condition, the Complainant shall take delivery thereof, under proper receipt from Opposite Party No.2.   
10.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-
18/01/2018	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]
	Member	Presiding Member
“Dutt”