Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/15/41

Ashish Jain - Complainant(s)

Versus

Apple India - Opp.Party(s)

Rajeev Malhotra Adv.

17 Apr 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

                                                C.C.No.41 of 15.01.2015

                                                          Date of decision:17.04.2015 

Ashish Jain son of Sh.Keemti Lal Jain, resident of H.No.3776/1, Street No.14, New Madhopuri, Sundar Nagar, Ludhiana.

                                                          ….Complainant.

                                       Versus  

                  

1.Apple India., 19^th Floor, Concorde Tower, C, UB City No.24, Vittal Malya Road, Bangalore- 560001 through its Authorized representative.

2.Reliance Communication Limited, A Block, 2^nd Floor, DAKC, Kopan Khairane, Navi Mumbai through its Authorized representative.

3.F-1 Info Solutions and Services Private Limited, 58-a, Model Gram, Near Kochar Market, Ludhiana through its Authorized representative.

                                                …Opposite parties

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE

CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Quorum:    Sh. R.L.Ahuja, President.

                   Sh.Sat Paul Garg, Member.

                   Ms.Babita, Member.             

                                     

Present:       Sh.Rajeev Malhotra, Adv. for complainant.

Ops ex-parte.

                                                ORDER

R.L.AHUJA, PRESIDENT.  

 

1.                Present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been filed by Sh.Ashish Jain(hereinafter in short to be described as ‘Complainant’) against Apple India., 19^th Floor, Concorde Tower, C, UB City No.24, Vittal Malya Road, Bangalore- 560001 through its Authorized representative and others(hereinafter in short to be described ‘Ops’), directing them to refund, replace or repair the I-Phone of the complainant besides to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- on account of mental pain, agony and harassment suffered by the complainant and Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.

2.                In brief, the case of the complainant is that complainant had purchased an Apple I-Phone 5S, 16GB MM, Silver colour, product Sr/IMEI No.358690056911296 of the company of OP1 through OP2 vide invoice NO.IN003036 dated 12.12.2013. The said I-Phone was purchased by the complainant online and the total amount of sale consideration of the same is Rs.61,856/- which was paid by the complainant. The complainant purchased the abovesaid I-Phone from E-Shop of OP2 under the scheme of Reliance Truly Unlimited Plan for 24 months and the amount of monthly EMI was Rs.2,999/- payable by the complainant in 24 monthly EMIs which had been regularly paid by the complainant through his bank since the date of its purchase of the said I-Phone. In the first week of November, 2014, some problem occurred in the display of the said I-Phone of the complainant and half of the display screen became black suddenly. The complainant had always kept his I-phone in a very good condition and always used the same very carefully and cautiously, as such, the complainant was astonished to see the mentioned problem in the display of his I-phone. On 7.11.2014, the complainant deposited the abovesaid phone with OP3 which is a service outlet of the OP1. The authorized representative of OP3 checked the I-Phone for a while and returned the same to the complainant by saying that the damaged occurred in the I-Phone not to be repaired under the warranty and demanded Rs.21,500/- for the repair of the same. The complainant requested that since the I-Phone is under the warranty period, therefore, the same should be replaced or repaired free of cost but the OP3 flatly refused to do so and told the complainant that there is no policy to replace or repair the damaged mobile phone under the warranty. The complainant got served the Ops with registered legal notice dated 17.11.2014 through his counsel calling upon them to refund, replace or repair the abovesaid I-Phone within one month but despite receipt of the said notice, neither the Ops replied nor complied with the same. Due to such act and conduct of Ops, the complainant has suffered a great mental tension and agony. Hence, this complaint.

3.                Notices of the complaint were sent to OPs through registered on 12.02.2015 but the same were not received back and as such, after expiry of 30 days of period, Ops were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dt.17.3.2015 by this Forum.  

4.                In order to prove the case of the complainant, learned counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant as Ex.CA alongwith documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C4 and closed the ex-parte evidence of the complainant.

5.                We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the complainant and have very carefully perused the evidence on the file.

6.                Perusal of the record reveals that the learned counsel for the complainant has placed on record affidavit of complainant as Ex.CA, in which, he has reiterated all the allegations made by him in the complaint. Further, learned counsel for the complainant has proved on record the documents Ex.C1 copy of invoice No.IN003036 dated 12.12.2013 issued by the OP2 to the complainant qua the purchase of the mobile handset in question on payment of Rs.61,856/- by the complainant, Ex.C2 copy of registered legal notice dated 17.11.2014 sent to the Ops by the complainant through his counsel, Ex.C3 copy of postal receipts  and Ex.C4 copy of Service Delivery Challan issued to the complainant by the OP3.

7.                Since, the OPs did not appear and contest the present complaint, so evidence adduced by the complainant goes unchallenged and unrebutted.

8.               From the allegations of the complainant as well as the evidence on record, it is apparently clear that complainant had purchased the mobile handset in question i.e. Apple I-Phone 5S, 16GB MM, Silver Colour, bearing IMEI No.358690056911296 manufactured by OP1 through OP2 vide invoice No.IN003036 dated 12.12.2013 which fact is evident from document Ex.C1 and the complainant had paid purchased the said mobile against the total sale consideration of Rs.61,856/-. Further, it is proved fact on record that mobile in question was giving problem to the complainant as the display of the said phone occurred some problem and half of the display screen became black suddenly, as a result of which, the complainant had approached OP3 on 7.11.2014 for curing the defect of the same which fact is evident from the document Ex.C4 copy of Service Delivery Challan issued by OP3 to the complainant, vide which,the problem was reported that due to pressure damage, display damage and half screen black. However, as per the allegations of the complainant that the representative of OP3 had checked his I-phone and thereafter, he had returned the same to the complainant by saying that the damaged occurred in the said phone not to be repaired under the warranty and demanded Rs.21,500/- for the repair of the said I-Phone from the complainant. However, it is proved fact on record that the mobile of the complainant is within the warranty period. Further, it is a proved fact on record that despite serving a legal notice dated 17.11.2014 by the complainant upon the Ops and despite repeated requests made by the complainant to the Ops to replace or repair the handset in question, Ops failed to do so.

9.                Since, it is proved on record that the OPs have failed to carry out the necessary repair in the mobile of the complainant despite his repeated requests and despite serving a legal notice and due to non working of the mobile of the complainant, the complainant has failed to use the mobile in question, which he had purchased for his personal use. Thus, Ops are proved to be deficient in rendering proper services.

10.              In view of the above discussion, by allowing this complaint, we direct OPs to carry out the necessary repair of the mobile of the complainant, which was purchased by the complainant vide invoice Ex.C1 and make it proper functional to the entire satisfaction of the complainant by replacing the display screen and other parts, if any, required without any costs or in the alternative, to replace the mobile set of the complainant with new one of the same make and model without any costs or in case, the same is not available, to make refund of the entire amount of mobile in question to the complainant and further, for causing sufferance and harassment to the complainant, OPs are directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.3000/-(three thousand only) to the complainant on account of mental pain, agony and harassment suffered by him and Rs.2000/-(Two thousand only) as litigation costs to the complainant. Order be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter, file be consigned to the record room.

 

(Babita)                 (Sat Paul Garg)                                (R.L.Ahuja)

 Member                  Member                                 President 

Announced in Open Forum.

Dated:17.04.2015

Gurpreet Sharma