Delhi

East Delhi

CC/905/2014

ALAM KHURSHID - Complainant(s)

Versus

APPLE INDIA - Opp.Party(s)

07 Oct 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO. 905/14

 

Alam Khurshid

U-222, C/o Shah Tech

Near Metro Pillar # 33

Shakarpur, Delhi – 110 092                                                        ….Complainant

 

Vs.

 

1. Apple India Pvt. Ltd.

19^th Floor, Concorde Tower ’C’

UB City, NO. 24, Vittal Mallya Road

Bangalore – 560 001, Karnataka

 

2. Manpreet Telcom

A-159, Vikas Marg,

Shakarpur, Delhi – 110 092

 

3. Future World Pvt. Ltd.

N-9, Outer Circle,

Connaught Place, New Delhi                                                     ….Opponents

 

Date of Institution: 03.08.2015

Judgment Reserved for : 04.10.2016

Judgment Passed on : 18.10.2016

 

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari  (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

 

 

JUDGEMENT

            The complainant Shri Alam Khurshid has filed this complaint against OP-1 Apple India Pvt. Ltd., OP-2 Manpreet Telecom and OP-3 Future World Pvt. Ltd., praying for refund of cost of mobile phone Rs. 25,000/- alongwith 18% interest, Rs. 4,50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment.

2.        The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant had purchased one I-phone 4S (white 8GB) on 22.04.2014, bearing IMEI no. 01354000546922 from OP-2.  Soon, after purchase, the complainant started facing problems like heating of the phone, battery discharge and hanging of phone to an extent that the complainant could not even accept calls.  Network problem was also one of the issues for which the complainant submitted his phone to TSS Service Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Preet Vihar on 30.05.2014.  The software of the phone was upgraded and the same was returned on 31.05.2014, but the above mentioned issues remained unresolved.  Again on 20.06.2014, the complainant visited the service centre where he again informed that the OS had been updated, but same problems continued to persist even when delivery was taken on 27.06.2014.  It was further stated in the complaint that the complainant took his phone to Future World in Connaught Place i.e.     OP-3 on 03.07.2014 and demanded in writing that the issues had been resolved, and submitted that the handset was still lying with OP-3.  Despite several written communication/emails, the grievance of the complainant was not addressed, thus, he was forced to file the present complaint.  The complainant had annexed emails, delivery report dated 30.05.2014, another delivery report dated 20.06.2014, service report dated 20.06.2014, service report dated 03.07.2014 of OP-3 and retail invoice dated 22.04.2014.

3.        Notice of the complaint was duly served to all the OPs.  However, none appeared on behalf of OP-1 and OP-2.  OP-3 filed their reply, wherein they submitted that OP-3 was the authorised service centre of Apple products.  It was submitted that the complaint was bad for non-joinder of parties as TSS Service Centre was not made party.  OP-3 had also stated that there was no problem in the phone.  However, it was the complainant, who refused to take his phone back and demanded replacement or refund.  It was also submitted that there was no deficiency in services on their part.  The case of the complainant was also referred to OP-1, who declined to replace the i-phone as there was no problem with the handset. 

4.        Rejoinder was filed by the complainant and all the averments made by OP-3 in WS were denied.  It was submitted that OP-3 was also liable for deficiency in services, being the authorised service centre.  The complainant has not filed any evidence by way of affidavit despite opportunity, thus, has failed to prove his version made in the complaint.  Thus, the complaint is dismissed.  There is no order as to cost.

            Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

 

(DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                              (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)

Member                                                                                Member    

     

      (SUKHDEV SINGH)

             President

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO. 905/14

                                                                                                  Date of Institution                  15/10/2014

                                                                                                  Order Reserved on                 27/02/2020

                                                                                                  Date of Order                          28/02/2020

 

In matter of

MrAlamKhurshid

Shop- U-222, c/o-Shah Tech

Nr. Metro Pillar 33, Shakarpur

Delhi 110092…………….……………………….……..…………………..….Complainant

 

Vs

1-Apple India Pvt Ltd.

19^th Floor, Concord Tower,

U B City, NH 24, VinodMallya Road

Bangalore, Karnataka,Pin 560001

 

2-M/s Manpreet Telecom

A-159, Shakarpur, VikasMarg, Delhi  110092

 

3-M/s Future World Pvt Ltd.

N-9, Outer Circle,

Connaught Place, new Delhi 110001 ………………..………….……Opponents

 

ComplainantAdvocate ..………………………….……….MrManoj Kumar

Opponent 1 …………….……………………………………….Ex Parte

Opponent 2 ……………………………………………………..Ex Parte

Opponent 3 Advocate ………………………………………MrDhruv Gupta & others 

 

Quorum Sukhdev Singh President

Dr P N TiwariMember                                                                                                   

MrsHarpreetKaur  Member

 

Order by Dr P N Tiwari, Member 

Brief Facts of the case                                   

Complainant purchased i-phone Apple 4S white colour 8 GB mobile, with IMEI 013540005469622 from OP2/Manpreet Telecom for a sum of Rs25,000/-on 22/04/2014vide invoice no. 409 (Ex CW1/1).

The said mobile created problem of heating from sides and battery getting discharge very fast and hang-up. Also started getting problems of no network connectivity, so took to service center TSS service solutions Pvt Ltd at PreetVihar, Delhi on 30 May 2014 (Ex CW1/2) and after removing problems, mobile was returned on 31 May 2014. The said mobile developed same problems, so again problems were corrected on 24/06/2014 (Ex CW1/3).

 

It was stated that said mobile developed same problems of heating and hang-ups from 27^th June,2014 so was taken to Future World/OP3 at Connaught place, Delhi on 03/07/2014 (Ex CW1/4) and mobile was deposited and after preparing job sheet, it was assured to return shortly. Complainant went to OP3/service center of OP1number of times, but neither response was received after writing no. of emails nor got any satisfactory reply. Even after visiting personally number of times, he did not get his phone after repair which was with OP3. Thus seeing deficiency in service on the part of OP3, filed this complaint and claimed refund of cost of mobile Rs. 25,000/-with 18% per annum and Rs4.50,000/-as compensation for mental harassment and other expenses.

After notices were served, OP3 filed written statement, but OP1 and OP2 failed to put up appearance, so were proceeded Ex Parte. OP3 stated that complainant had not made TSS service center as a necessary party to see the existed problems as there was no problem in his mobile. It was also submitted that complainant did not come to collect the mobile despite of calling no. of times, but insisted for refund of cost of his mobile which was not possible for OP3 as being the authorized service center of OP1, hence there was no deficiency on their part.

 

Complainant filed rejoinder to written statement of OP3 where he denied all replies and stressed that OP3 neither returned his mobile nor refunded the cost of mobile. He did not file evidences on affidavit. So order was passed by this Forum and complaint was dismissed in default for want of evidences on affidavit.

Thereafter complainant filed First Appeal no. 167/2017 before Hon. State Commission Delhi which was decided on 11/08/2017 and order of this Ld Forum was set aside and allowed complainant to file evidences on affidavit (Ex CW1/7).

Complainant submitted evidences on affidavit and relied upon CW1/1 as invoice, job sheets CW1/2&3 and various emails sent to OP1 as CW1/4-5 and stressed for refund of the cost from OP3.

OP3 also submitted their evidences on affidavit through MrVinod Sharma, working as Sr. Manager who stated there was no evidence of manufacturing defect in said mobile. The engineer fromOP1 reported that no problem of overheating was seen as per micro inspection conducted and stated that overcharging and maximum use of mobile resulted drainage of battery as battery had no standard warranty after six month, so battery replacement was required and as far as hang-up problem, software was upgraded, but had no manufacturing defect in hardware. Despite of repeated calling, complainant did not come to collect his mobilehence there was no deficiency on OP3 so no liability could be levied. 

 

Arguments were heard and order was reserved.

We have gone through all the facts and evidenceson record. It was admitted that the said mobile was with OP3, but the same was not collected by the complainant. This clearly establishes deficiency on the part of complainant as he was adamant for taking refund of the cost of his mobile from OP3 which shows complainant has no idea from whom to ask for refund, if manufacturing defect was established. So, OP3 has no deficiency in services and also OP1 being a manufacturer of mobile and OP2 being a seller of this mobile also has no deficiency and no liability could be fastened on all OPs.

 

Thus, we come to the conclusion that complainant has failed to prove deficiency in services of OP3 or manufacturing defect. As mobile was with OP3 and was under warranty, so complainantis directed to collect his mobile from OP3 within 30 days. It is also directed to OP3 to check the said mobile and handover the said mobile in working condition. In the interest of justice, OP3 will provide six months service warranty from the date of handing over the mobile to be taken from OP1/Apple India, the manufacturer of the said mobile.

There shall be no other order to cost.

 

 

The first free copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulations and file be consigned to the Record Room.

 

(Dr) P N TiwariMember                                                                             MrsHarpreetKaurMember

 

SukhdevSingh President