BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AMBALA
Complaint case no. : 196 of 2018
Date of Institution : 19.06.2018
Date of decision : 22.02.2019
Ashish Saini S/o Sh. Ram Saini, Resident of H.No.1116/29, Mohinder Nagar, Ambala City.
……. Complainant.
1. Base 39, Shop No.6269, Nicholson Road, Sadar Bazaar, Ambala Cantt.
2. iQor Global Services India Pvt. Ltd, shop No.12, First Floor, Galaxy Mall, Sector-7, Ambala City.
3. Apple India Pvt. Ltd. 19th Floor, Concorde Tower-C, UB City No.24, Vittal Mallya Road, Bangalore- 560001.
….…. Opposite Parties.
Before: Sh. D.N.Arora, President.
Sh. Pushpender Singh, Member.
Dr. Sushma Garg, Member.
Present: Complainant in person.
Sh.Rajeev Sachdeva, counsel for Op No.3.
OP Nos. 1 & 2 already ex parte.
As per:- D.N.ARORA PRESIDENT
In nutshell, brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant had purchased an Apple Mobile handset make Iphone7 32 GB Mate Black vide bill no.95 on dated 12.04.2017 from OP No.1 with one year warranty for a sum of Rs. 54000/-. Sometime after purchasing the set giving problem, the touch system of the set not working, the battery backup is very low and hanging frequently. The complainant approached the OP No.1 via online service assistance. But after some time the set starts giving the same problems. Upon this the complainant approached the service centre/OP No.2 as per directed by online support of Apple India. On dated 12.03.2018 the complainant went OP No.2 and retained the handset of complainant with the assurance that the defects will be removed shortly and issued a job sheet no.50182040 disclosing the defects On dated 14.03.2018 they have returned the handset with the assurance that the defects are removed and now set will function properly but the same problems persists and could not be removed by the Ops. The complainant again went to the Ops but they flatly refused to check the set saying that the set is now out of warranty. He is suffering great hardship, mental pain and agony due to the deficiency in service on the part of the Ops. Hence, the present complaint.
2. Registered notice issued to Op Nos.1 & 2 but none have turned up on their behalf and they were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 25.10.2018. Upon notice, OP No.3 appeared through counsel and filed written statement submitting that the complainant approached the OP No.2 an authorized service provider of the OP No.3 reporting some alleged issues regarding the Battery issue in the device. The OP No.2 diagnosed the device and found that there no issues with the battery and since the device was under warranty the OP No.2 restored the software and advised the complainant that they found no battery issues in the device and it is working as expected. The device was working absolutely fine and so the device was returned back to the complainant in the working condition. Thereafter, the complainant never visited the OP No.2 for any sort of issues in the device. So, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.
3. To prove his version complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure C/A along with documents as annexure C-1 and C-5 and close his evidence. On the other hand, Counsel for the OP No.3 tendered affidavit as Annexure R/X alongwith documents as Annexure R-1 to R-2 and close their evidence.
4. We have heard both the counsels of the parties and carefully gone through the case file.
5. It is not disputed that the complainant had purchased an Apple Mobile handset make Iphone7 32 GB Mate Black vide bill no.95 on dated 12.04.2017 from OP No.1 with one year warranty for a sum of Rs. 54,000/-Annexure C-2. After few days of purchase, the handset has creating troubles i.e. the touch system of the set not working, the battery backup is very low and hanging frequently. The complainant has approached to OP No.2/ service center and they have issued a job sheet Annexure C-3 dated 14.03.2018 shows that the mobile set having problem i.e. “Battery Backup is low I-Battery drain vastly-2 sometime touch is not working 3- Hanging frequently”.
On the other hand counsel for the OP No.3 has also argued that there is no problem of battery and since the device was under warranty, the OP No.2 has restored the software and the handset was in working condition at that time and after that the complainant never visited the office of Ops regarding any problem in the handset in question.
6. Perusal of the file, the complainant had to visit OP No.2/Service Centre time and again but inspite of repeated visits of the complainant, but OPs did not rectified the problems mention in the job sheet. The complainant had purchased the mobile in question after spending huge amount Rs. 54000/- and mobile in question become defective within warranty period. “OPs have failed to rectify the defect in the same rather the act and conduct of the OPs shows that in order to avoid their liability. In the present case the complainant has neither been satisfied with the performance of the mobile nor with after the sale service of the OPs. In the present case OPs No. 1 & 2 have proceeded against ex parte. As such, the contention enumerated in the complaint remained un-rebutted and thus we have no other option except to believe the version as well as documents submitted by the complainant.
7. In view of the above discussion we come to this conclusion that Op Nos.1 to 3 are deficient in providing the services and they have also failed to redress the grievance of the complainant as per his satisfaction. Hence, the present complaint is hereby is allowed against OPs with costs and they are directed to comply with the following directions jointly and severally within thirty days from receipt of copy of the order:-
(i) To replace the Mobile set in question with a new one of the same model of the same price. If the same model is not available then to refund the cost of mobile set to the tune of Rs.54000 /- as per Annexure C-2 along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of complaint till its realization.
(ii) Also to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- on account of mental harassment & agony alongwith cost of litigation.
Copy of the order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced on :22.02.2019
(PUSHPENDER KUMAR) (DR.SUSHMA GARG) (D.N. ARORA)
Member Member President
