Delhi

East Delhi

CC/446/2015

ONKAR SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

APPLE - Opp.Party(s)

04 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. 446/15

 

Onkar Singh

S/o Shri Manjeet Singh

R/o F-Block, 14/5B, Krishna Nagar

Delhi- 110 051                                                                                 ….Complainant

 

Vs.

 

1. Radius System Private Limited

F-28, Star City Mall, Mayur Vihar Phase – I

Delhi – 110 092.

 

2. Apple India Pvt. Ltd.

19^th Floor, Concord Tower-C

UB City No. 24, Vital Mallya Road

Bangalore – 560 001, Karnataka                                               ….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

            This complaint  pertains to deficiency in services as alleged by the complainant Shri Onkar Singh against OP-1 – Radius System Pvt. Ltd and OP-2 – Apple.  The complainant has prayed for refund of Rs. 58,000/- , Rs. 20,000/- compensation on account of for harassment and mental agony and Rs. 15,000/- as cost of litigation.

2.        The grievance of the complainant is that he had purchased one Apple I-phone 6-64GB from OP-1, the authorised dealer of OP-2 on 15.05.2015 for Rs. 58,000/-.  Complainant immediately visited OP-1, when he found that the microphone was not working, due to which his phone was changed and the IMEI of new handset was 359257068928806.  But, again in the exchanged handset, there was a problem of 3G functioning, network and MIC was not working properly.

            It is further stated that on 30.05.2015, he visited OP-2 and was assured that his handset will be replaced.  On 31.05.2015, complainant was given another handset with IMEI NO. 359252065169660; but it also had problem of 3G function.  The complainant visited the OP on 08.06.2015, but his phone was not replaced despite assurance.  Hence, present complaint.  The complainant has annexed invoice dated 15.05.2015, service report dated 15.05.2015, service report dated 30.05.2015, another service report dated 08.06.2015, emails exchanged between the complainant and OP. 

3.        Notice of the complainant was served upon both OPs and they filed their written version.  

            OP-1 submitted that complainant was not a consumer qua them.  It was also submitted that they were only authorised service centre of OP-2 and had replaced the handset of the complainant twice.  It was further submitted that the complainant had refused to accept the handset.  

            OP-2 also filed their written version and submitted that they had replaced the handset twice.  It was also submitted that third time replacement was also offered to the complainant, which was refused by the complainant himself and there was no deficiency in services on their part.

4.        Rejoinder was filed by the complainant where the averments made in the complaint were reiterated and that of written version of OP-1 were denied.

5.        Evidence by way of affidavit was filed by OP-2 where Shri Priyesh Povanna, country legal counsel, Apple India was examined. The contents of written version of OP-2 were reproduced in affidavit.  However, no documentary proof was filed by OP-2 to prove that complainant had refused to accept third replacement. 

6.        We have heard the complainant and Ld. Counsel for OP.  Replacement of I-phone twice was admitted by all the parties i.e. the complainant, OP-1 and OP-2.  Apple is known for its quality and technology.  The handset of the complainant was replaced twice within a month of purchase.  OP-1 is the authorised service centre of OP-2, which works as per direction of OP-2.  Thus, they are not responsible for any deficiency in services.  It is highly unacceptable to expect this kind of products being sold by OP-2, organisation of world class repute.

7.        We, therefore, direct OP-2 to handover new mobile handset to the complainant with fresh warranty that shall commence from the date of handing over.  We also award Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for mental harassment and this shall include costs of litigation.  If the said order is not complied within 30 days from the receipt of this order, then OP-2 shall pay Rs. 58,000/- alongwith 9% interest from the date of filing of this complaint till realisation.    

            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