Haryana

Kurukshetra

51/2018

Karambir Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bala Ji Comm - Opp.Party(s)

Arvind hardwaj

04 Jul 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

 

Consumer Complaint no. 51 of 2018.

Date of instt. 01.03.2018. 

                                                                             Date of Decision: 04.07.2019.

 

Karambir Singh aged about 47 years son of Sh. Lakhi Ram, resident of village Daniyalpur, District Karnal. 

                                                                ……….Complainant.      

                        Versus

 

1. M/s Bala Ji Communication, Mohan Nagar, Opposite Telephone Exchange, Kurukshetra.

 

2. Iqbal Global Services India Pvt. Ltd., Shop No.3, 2^nd Floor, Super Mall, Sector-12, Opp. Income Tax Department, Karnal.

 

3. Apple India Pvt. Ltd. No.24, 19^th Floor, UB City, Vittal Mally Road, Banglore 56001.

 

..………Opposite parties.

 

       Complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.            

 

Before       Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.    

                Ms. Neelam, Member. 

                Sh. Sunil Mohan Trikha, Member                                          

Present:     Sh. Arvind Bhardwaj, Advocate for complainant.            

Sh. Shekhar Kapoor, Advocate for opposite parties No.1 and   3.

Opposite party no.2 exparte.

           

ORDER

                                                                         

                    This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Karambir Singh against M/s Bala Ji Communication and others, the opposite parties.

2.             It is stated in the complaint that complainant had purchased a mobile phone marka Apple-I phone 7 black 329B manufactured by Apple Iphone from op no.1 for a sum of Rs.52,000/- vide bill No.1262 dated 19.4.2017 and op no.1 assured about guarantee of one year. It is further averred that after purchase of mobile, it started giving problems upon which complainant visited op no.1 in this regard and op no.1 referred the complainant to the service center i.e. op no.2. The complainant visited the service center/ op no.2 on 24.10.2017 and told about the problems in the mobile. The op no.2 checked the mobile and told that the mobile is having manufacturing defect i.e. “unable to turn on the phone iphone is not powering on” and gave assurance that they will rectify the problem as soon as possible and kept the mobile with it. It is further averred that after some days, the complainant visited op no.2 but op no.2 did not give any sufficient answer to the complainant and stated that mobile is under maintenance and requested to come again after some days. It is further averred that thereafter the complainant regularly visited to the op no.2 but op no.2 could not diagnose/ rectify the said problem. The complainant requested the op no.2 to return the mobile as complainant is facing hardship in absence of the mobile but he did not pay any heed to the genuine request of the complainant and did not return the mobile till today. That the above said act and conduct of the part of ops amounts to unfair trade practice as well as deficiency in service. Hence, this complaint.

3.             On notice, opposite parties no.1 and 3 appeared. Op no.3 filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that complainant approached the op no.2 an authorized service provider of op no.3 on 2.11.2017 for some alleged issues regarding the device not turning on. The op no.2 diagnosed the device and confirmed the said issues and sent the device to Repair Centre, Bangalore. The Repair Centre inspected the device thoroughly and found that the device was tampered internally which resulted into unauthorized modification in the device. The op no.2 offered an out of warranty paid service to which the complainant denied. Thereafter, the complainant never approached/ visited op no.2 at any time. The complainant was clearly informed that his device is rendered out of warrantee. The complainant has breached the warrantee provisions by violating the terms and conditions of the warrantee. Remaining contents of the complaint are also denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.

4.             Op no.2 did not appear despite notice and was proceeded against exparte.

5.             Learned counsel for op no.1 made a statement that written statement filed on behalf of op no.3 be also read on behalf of op no.1.

6.             The complainant tendered his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 and Ex.C2. Learned counsel for ops no.1 and 3 tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.R1 and Ex.R2.

7.             We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.     

8.             From the copy of cash/ credit memo Ex.C1 it is evident that complainant purchased the mobile in question from opposite party no.1 for a sum of Rs.52000/- on 19.4.2017. In the copy of job sheet dated 24.10.2017 Ex.C2, in the column of problem it is mentioned that “unable to turn on the phone iphone is not powering on”. So, it is very much clear that mobile phone suffered manufacturing defect during the warrantee period. It appears from the written statement of op no.3 that it has taken lame excuse that device was tampered internally because there is no corroborative evidence placed on record in this regard by op no.3 and this assertion of the op no.3 is only to absolve from liability. The mobile in question is lying with ops since long and the ops have caused deficiency in service towards the complainant by not providing defect free mobile to the complainant.

9.             In view of the above, we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite parties to refund the amount of Rs.52,000/- i.e. price of the mobile in question to the complainant within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the complainant will be entitled to interest @9% per annum on the above said amount from the date of order till actual payment. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.

 

Announced in open Forum:

Dt.: 4.7.2019 

                                                                        (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                        President.

 

 

(Neelam)           (Sunil Mohan Trikha)        

                Member                     Member