DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No. 496 of 23.12.2016

                                      Decided on:          1.11.2017

Anokhe Lal son of Sh. Patti Ram resident of House No.18-A, Shanti Nagar Near C.M.T.College, Patiala.

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1.       Bhatia Mobile Hut, Lahori Gate, Back Side Bus Stand Patiala through its Proprietor.

2.       UNICON INFC SOLUTIONS, Pvt. Ltd. Bhupindra Road, Near Mittal Building near Columbia Hospital, Patiala.

3.       Apple India Pvt. Ltd., 19^th Floor Tower-C, U.B. City No.24, Vital Mallaya Road, Banglore.

                                                                   …………Opposite Parties

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

                                      Smt. Neena Sandhu, President

                                      Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member                              

ARGUED BY:

                                      Sh.Anokhe Lal, complainant in person.

                                      Opposite Parties No.1&2 ex-parte.

                                      Sh.J.P.Sharma,Adv. counsel for Op No.3.

 ORDER

                                    SMT.NEELAM  GUPTA,  MEMBER

1. The complainant purchased one mobile phone make, Apple, Model 55 from Op No.1 vide bill No.4985 dated 19.3.2016 for a sum of Rs.23,000/-.It is averred that during the warranty period i.e. on 26.11.2016, the front camera of the aforesaid  mobile phone stopped functioning and the complainant brought the matter into the notice of Op No.1, who told the complainant to contact Op no.2.Accordingly, the complainant contacted OP no.2 and got the mobile phone deposited with Op No.2 vide complaint No.PTA 10172 dated 28.11.2016 and OP No.2 told the complainant to collect the mobile phone after two days. It is further averred that after the registration of the complaint, the complainant had been visiting Op no.2 time and again but OP no.2 did not repair the mobile phone and returned the same to the complainant. As a result , the complainant underwent a lot of harassment as well as mental agony as he was unable to do his routine work without the mobile phone.Failure on the part of OP no.2 to rectify the problem amounted to deficiency in service on its part. Ultimately the complainant approached this Forum under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act(for short the Act),1986.
2. On notice, OPs No.1&2 failed to appear despite service and were thus proceeded against ex-parte. Whereas OP no.3 appeared through counsel and filed its reply to the complaint. The only plea taken by Op no.3 in its written statement is that on inspection it was found that there was liquid content present in the iphone in question which clearly puts the device out of warranty. Damaged to the mobile phone was caused by complainant’s own actions and the OPs cannot be held liable for the same. After denying all other allegations made in the complaint, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.
3. In support of the complaint, the complainant has tendered in evidence his sworn affidavit Ex.CA alongwith documents Exs.C1 and C2 & closed the evidence.

The ld. counsel for Op No.3 has tendered in evidence Ex.OPA, affidavit of Sh.Priyesh Poovanna, Country Legal Counsel of Apple India Pvt. Ltd.alongwith documents Exs.OP1 and OP2 & closed the evidence.

4. The complainant and the ld. counsel for OP no.3 failed to file written arguments. We have heard the complainant, the ld. counsel for OP No.3 and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
5. Ex.C1 is the copy of the invoice, whereby the complainant purchased one mobile phone from OP No.1 on 19.3.2016.Ex.C2 is the job sheet dated 19.11.2016 vide which the complainant got deposited the mobile phone with Op No.2.During the course of arguments, the complainant submitted that the date of depositing the mobile phone with service centre was wrongly mentioned as 28.11.2016 instead of 19.11.2016 due to typographic mistake. The complainant deposited the mobile phone with OP No.2 on 19.11.2016, who returned the same without repairing it. The plea taken by Op no.3 is that the mobile phone got damaged due to liquid content present in the mobile phone. Though the OP has taken this plea yet has failed to produce on record any documentary evidence in order to prove this fact. The problem occurred in the mobile phone during warranty period and the OPs were bound to rectify the same which they failed to do and it amounted to deficiency in service on their part.
6. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we accept the complaint of the complainant with a direction to OPs No.2&3 to repair the mobile phone of the complainant without charging any amount from the complainant and if that is not possible to replace the same with a new one of the same make and if that is not possible to refund an amount of Rs.23000/- i.e. the price of the mobile phone .The OPs are further directed to pay a sum of Rs.4000/- as compensation for the harassment undergone by the complainant alongwith a sum of Rs.3000/-as litigation expenses. Order be complied by the OPs within a period of 30 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copies of this order. Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost under the Rules. Thereafter, file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

ANNOUNCED

DATED: 1.11.2017               

                                                                   NEENA SANDHU

                                                                       PRESIDENT

                                                                   NEELAM GUPTA

                                                                         MEMBER