Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/524/2014

Ramandeep Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Trilochan Singh, Adv.

27 Feb 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	524/2014
Date of Institution	:	09.10.2014
Date of Decision	:	27/02/2015

 

                  

                                                         

 

Ramandeep Singh aged about 28 years son of Sh.Gurcharan Singh r/o K.No.155, Phase-4, Mohali.

                                      ...  Complainant.

Versus

1.       Apple India Pvt. Ltd., 19^th Floor, Concorde Tower “C” UB City No.24, Vittal Mallya Road, Bangalore-56001 Karnataka.

2.       Reliance Retail Ltd., (formerly Reliance Fresh Ltd.,) Elante Mall, Shop No.247, Second Floor, CO-178-178-A, Industrial and Business Park, Phase-1, Chandigarh -160002.

3.       Paramatrix Info Solutions Pvt. Ltd., SCO No.112-113, G.F., Sector 34-A, Chandigarh-160022.

­­…. Opposite Parties.

 

BEFORE:  SHRI RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

SHRI JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER

 

Argued by:  Sh.Trilochan Singh, Counsel for the complainant

                        Sh.Gaurav Bhardwaj, Counsel for the OP No.3.

                        OPs No.1 and 2 exparte.

 

PER RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

1.           In brief, the case of the complainant is that he purchased iPhone 5S-32-GP grey from OP No.2 vide cash memo dated 11.05.2014, Annexure C-2 for Rs.58750.62P.  The complainant paid the said amount through his Master Card vide Invoice No.001129 of HDFC Bank, Annexure C-1.  After three days of its purchase, the mobile handset started giving various problems and, as such, the complainant approached OP No.3 on 21.07.2014 for repairs. According to the complainant, OP No.3 vide Service Report, Annexure C-3 diagnosed as replacement of the equipment and advised him to collect the same on 25.07.2014. It was further stated that OP No.3 returned the mobile handset after its repairs but the same was not replaced. It was further stated that after 3-4 days, the battery of the mobile handset   was not properly charging and as such he again approached OP No.3 but it said that the equipment had already been changed.  According to the complainant, he requested OPs No.2 and 3 many times for the replacement of the mobile handset as the same was not repairable but to no effect.  Alleging that the aforesaid acts amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant filed the instant complaint.
2.           In the written statement filed by OP No.3, it has been pleaded that the mobile handset was accepted for diagnosis and after inspection, no problem/fault was found and as such the same was returned to the complainant because the same did not require any repairs/replacement.  It was further stated that the service report placed on record by the complainant is forged and fabricated one. The remaining allegations as averred in the complaint were denied, being false.  According to Opposite Party No.3, there was no deficiency in service on its part and the complaint deserves to be dismissed.
3.           Notices were sent for the service of Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 through registered AD letter on 12.11.2014.  However, neither the same were received back served/unserved till date.  As the period of more than 30 days had passed, therefore, it was presumed that they had been duly served.  None appeared on behalf of Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 on the date fixed, hence they were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 19.12.2014.
4.           The complainant filed rejoinder to the written reply of the Opposite Party No.3 controverting its stand and reiterating his own.
5.           We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and have gone through the documents on record including the written arguments of the complainant.
6.           Admitted, the complainant purchased the mobile handset in question for Rs.58,750.62 on 11.05.2014 having one year warranty. Annexure R-3/2 is the service report vide which the complainant handed over the mobile handset in question to OP No.3 with problems of display and networking etc.  However, after inspection, no problem in the handset was found by OP No.3 and as such the same was returned to the complainant on 25.07.2014 and the same was accepted by him without any protest meaning thereby that the mobile handset in question was working properly.    Moreover, the burden to proof the manufacturing defect, if any, in the mobile handset in question was upon the complainant which he failed to discharge and as such he is not entitled for replacement of the mobile handset in question.
7.           Further, the stand of the complainant is that the battery of the mobile phone in question was not working properly and it was giving the problem of charging. Since the mobile phone in question is under warranty and as such the Opposite Parties are under legal obligation to replace the battery of the mobile phone in question and failure to do so itself amounted to deficiency in service on their part.
8.           For the reasons recorded above, the complainant is allowed with a direction to the Opposite Parties to replace the battery of the mobile phone in question with a new one, free of cost.  They are also directed to pay a lump sum compensation of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant. This order be complied with by the Opposite Parties within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amount aforesaid shall carry interest @9% per annum from the date of this order till actual payment besides payment of litigation costs.
9.           Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

27/02/2015

Sd/-

(RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER

cmg