Punjab

Sangrur

CC/126/2016

Shubham Goyal - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Shri Ashish Grover

21 Sep 2016

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                             

                                                                  Complaint no. 126                                                                                         Instituted on:   12.01.2016                                                                                   Decided on:    21.09.2016

 

Shubham Goyal son of Shri Ashok Kumar Goyal # 136, Ward No.10/C, Shivpuri Mohalla, Dhuri, District Sangrur.   

                                                …. Complainant

                                Versus

 

1. Apple India Pvt. Limited, 19th Floor, Concorde Tower-C, UB City No.24, Vittal Malaya Road, Banglore-560001 through its Managing Director.
2. Paramatrix Info Solutions Pvt. Limited SCO No.112-113 Ground Floor, Sector 34-A, Behind Capital Mall, Chandigarh-160022 through its Managing Director.
3. K V Enterprises E-250 Road No.13, Sikar Road, Opp. Water Tank Vishwakarma Ind. Jaipur-302016 through its prop/partner.
4. Snapdeal, No.246, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase-III, New Delhi through its Managing Director.    

                                              ….Opposite parties.

 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT      :     Shri Ashish Grover Advocate                          

 

FOR THE OPP. PARTY NO.1  :      Shri Sandip Goyal, Advocate                          

 

FOR THE OPP. PARTY NO.2  :      Shri Amit Goyal, Advocate                         

 

FOR OPP. PARTY No.3            :     Given up

 

FOR THE OPP. PARTY NO.4  :      Shri G.S.Toor, Advocate                         

 

Quorum

         

                    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

K.C.Sharma, Member

Sarita Garg, Member

     

ORDER:  

 

Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

 

1.             Shubham Goyal, complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that he online purchased one  Apple iphone 4S mobile phone for an amount of Rs.16994/-  vide invoice number S4D858/14-15/36195 dated 17/02/2015 from the OP No.3 through OP no.4 under one year warranty. From the  beginning  the  said mobile is not working properly as  it started creating network,  hanging and battery backup problems for which the complainant approached the OPs who started to make lame excuse that there may be more use of mobile set  and mobile hangs due to software. Thereafter  mobile started giving another problem of restart/ reboot automatically for which the complainant approached OP no.2 on 25.06.2015 who returned the mobile set saying that same has been repaired but OP no.2 refused to issue the job sheet.  Thereafter the complainant went to the OP no.2 again  on 15.12.2015 with alleged defective mobile phone  but this time they made every efforts to remove the problems but failed to do so as it has manufacturing defect. Thereafter the complainant requested the OPs to replace the defective mobile set with new one as it was within the warranty period but they did not do so. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainant has sought following reliefs:-

i)      OPs be directed to refund the purchase amount of Rs.16994/- alongwith interest @18% per annum from the date of purchase till realization,

ii)     OPs be directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.50000/- as compensation   on account of mental agony, harassment,

iii)   OPs be directed to pay Rs.22000/- as litigation expenses.

2.             The record shows that the OP No.3 was given up by the complainant by making a statement on 12.04.2016.

3.             In reply filed by OP No.1, it has been stated that the OP no.2 which is an authorized service provider  of OP No.3 has no record of  having inspected the complainant's iphone. Further there is no record of the complainant having visited it and lodged a complaint regarding its alleged issues. It has been further stated that the complainant  never visited the OP no.2 on 25.06.2015 or on 15.12.2015. There is no record  of him visiting  the OP No.2.  Further, it has been stated that  complainant has not produced any sort of evidence to support his claim of the OP No.2 not issuing him the service report. In the event there was really no support provided by the opposite parties, the complainant should have issued a legal notice or email to the OP No.1 however the complainant did not do so and this proves that the complainant did not have any defect in his iphone. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1 .

4.             In reply filed by OP no.2, preliminary objections on the grounds of maintainability and  cause of action have been taken up.  On merits,  it is denied that the OP No.2 refused to issue  the job sheet  in respect of handset  of the complainant.  It is submitted that  the complainant has not approached to the OP No.2 any time during the entire period of  purchase till today as claimed by the complainant on 25.06.2015 and 15.12.2015.  It is further submitted  that  when any person approached  to OP no.2, the OP no.2  prepare a job sheet in respect of the problems of handset. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.2.

5.             In reply filed by the OP no.4,  legal objections on the grounds of maintainability and  cause of action  have been taken up.   It is denied that the complainant is a consumer of the OP no.4 as  there no consideration/ amount has been paid to the OP No.4.  It is further  submitted that a bare perusal of the  averments made in the complaint by the complainant clearly shows that  the product has been sold by the OP no.3.  The OP No.4 is neither  the seller nor the manufacturer of the produce purchased by the complainant.            

6.             The complainant in his evidence has tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-4 and closed evidence. On the other hand, OP no.1 has tendered an affidavit Ex.OP1/1 along with DW1 to DW3 and closed evidence. OP No.2 has tendered an affidavit Ex.OP2/1 and closed evidence and closed evidence. The OP No.4 has tendered an affidavit Ex.OP4/1 and Ex.OP4/2 and closed evidence.

7.             In the instant case, the complainant's case is that he purchased one  Apple iphone 4S mobile phone for an amount of Rs.16994/-  vide invoice number S4D858/14-15/36195 dated 17/02/2015 from the OP No.3 through OP no.4 under one year warranty. It has been further alleged that from the  beginning  the  said mobile is not working properly as  it started creating network,  hanging and battery backup problems  for which the complainant approached the OPs who started to make lame excuse that there may be more use of mobile set  and mobile hangs due to software. Thereafter the mobile started giving another problem of restart/ reboot automatically for which the complainant again approached OP no.2 on 25.06.2015 who returned the mobile set saying that same has been repaired but OP no.2 refused to issue the job sheet.  Thereafter the complainant went to the OP no.2 again  on 15.12.2015 with alleged defective mobile phone  but this time they made every efforts to remove the problems but failed to do so.

8.             Against the version of the complainant the OP no.2 has specifically denied that the complainant had approached it on 25.06.2015 and 15.12.2015 and if  any  person approaches  to  it  then OP No.2 prepares a job sheet in respect of the problems of handset set but in the present case when the complainant never approached it then the question of preparation/ issuance of any job sheet does not arise. From the perusal of entire record and  having heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, we find that the contention of the OPs holds much water as the complainant has not produced any document/ evidence regarding complaint against the OP No.2 to the competent/ higher authority i.e. company for non-issuance of the job sheet by the OP No.2 in respect of his defect mobile set.

9.             Even if it is assumed for the sake of arguments that the mobile set of the complainant has a manufacturing defect for which the complainant has produced report of an expert namely Saurav Kumar who simply opined that he got checked the said mobile phone and found that the mobile set has manufacturing defect and same is not curable one but  in our view  he did not opine  in what manner  it has a manufacturing defect.  Furthermore, the complainant has not produced any proof/ document/ certificate regarding experience/ qualification of the expert which could show whether he is a qualified expert or not ?

10.           There is another snag in the  instant case as  the complainant  has stated in the complaint he had purchased the mobile set in question from the OP no.3 through OP no.4 but, surprisingly he has given up the OP no.3 on 12.04.2016 from who he purchased the mobile set in dispute. We are of the considered view if the complainant gives up the seller of the mobile set in dispute then the present complaint is not a valid complaint in the eye of law.

 

11.           In view of the above discussion, we find no merit in the present complaint and as such the same is dismissed however with no order as to costs. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course.                                           

                        Announced

                        September 21, 2016

 

 

 

          ( Sarita Garg)    ( K.C.Sharma)         (Sukhpal Singh Gill)                                                                                                                                                                 Member         Member                            President

 

 

 

BBS/-