Punjab

Sangrur

CC/56/2017

Hitesh Jindal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Chhabra Communications - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.J.S.Kaler

16 May 2017

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                             

                                                                  Complaint no. 56                                                                                           

                                                                    Instituted on:   07.02.2017                                                                                 

                                                                   Decided on:    16.05.2017

 

Hitesh Jindal son of Shri Harbans Lal Jindal r/o E-51, Street No.1, Officer Colony, Sangrur.       

                                                        …. Complainant

                                        Versus

 

1.  Chhabra Communications, Near Bus Stand, Sangrur through its Proprietor/ Partner.  

 

2.     Unicorn Infosolutions Pvt. Limited, 1st Floor, Mittal Building, Bhupindra Road, Near Columbia Asia Hospital, Patiala through its prop/partner.

 

3.      Apple India Pvt. Limited, 19th Floor, Concorde Tower-C, UB City No.24, Vittal Malaya Road, Banglore-560001 through its Managing Director.  

                                                ….Opposite parties.

 

 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT      :     Shri J.S. Kaler, Advocate                          

 

FOR OPP. PARTIES NO.1&2  :      Exparte                         

 

FOR OPP. PARTY NO.3          :      Shri  Sandip Goyal,  Advocate                         

 

 

 

Quorum

         

                    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

Sarita Garg, Member

Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

     

 

 

ORDER:  

 

Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

 

1.             Hitesh Jindal complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that he purchased Apple I-phone 5S from OP no.1 for Rs.23500/- vide invoice no. 6528 dated 22.02.2016 under one year warranty.  From the very beginning the mobile phone in question was not working properly and it started giving problems of hanging, network and battery backup. After some time, mobile set started to give another problem of ear phone not connected which disturbed the complainant too much for which he approached OP no.2 who issued job sheet dated 11.01.2017. The problem was not rectified and the complainant again approached the OP no.2 who told that he made every effort to remove the problems but the mobile set has manufacturing defect which cannot be rectified. Thus alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainant has sought following reliefs:-

i)      OPs be directed to replace the defective mobile with new one or in the alternative to refund the purchase amount i.e. Rs.23500/- alongwith interest @18% per annum from the date of purchase till realization, ii)        OPs be directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.25000/- as compensation   on account of mental agony, harassment, iii)   OPs be directed to pay Rs.11000/- as litigation expenses.

2.             Notices were issued to the OPs but despite service OPs no. 1 and 2 did not appear and as such OPs no.1&2 were proceeded exparte.

3.             In reply filed by the OP no.3, preliminary objections on the grounds of maintainability and  concealment of material facts have been taken up. It is submitted that if there was a complaint registered, the complainant would have been directed to the authorized service provider to get his iphone inspected. In the event the complainant had spoken  to the customer care  of the OP no.1 they would have given a complaint number  to him  and also sent a an email. The complainant has not produced any such email or the complaint number issued. The OP no.2 had conducted sufficient check upon  the said iphone and found out that there is no manufacturing defect as such.  Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP no.3.

4.             The complainant in his evidence has tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-6 and closed evidence. On the other hand, OP no.3 has tendered documents Ex.OP3/1 alongwith annexure R-1 and closed evidence.

5.             It is not in dispute that the complainant purchased  one  Apple I-phone 5S from  the OP no.1 for an amount of Rs.23500/- which is evident from retail invoice Ex.C-4. It is an admitted case of both the parties that the complainant on 11.01.2017  approached OP no.2 with complaint of  ear phone not connected  who kept the mobile set in question with it and issued job sheet dated 11.01.2017 which is Ex.C-5 on record.  The complainant's specific case is that after receiving back and using the mobile set in question it again started same problem for which he approached OP no.2 but OP no.2 told that he made every effort to remove the defect but the mobile set has manufacturing defect which cannot be rectified. In support of his version the complainant has produced on record report of an expert  namely Damanjit Singh alongwith his affidavit Ex.C-2 and Ex.C-3 wherein he opined that after thorough checking  and using the said mobile set, he found that there is manufacturing defect and due to that reason the mobile set is giving said problems which are not curable one. On the other hand, OP no.2 case is that in the event the complainant had spoken to the customer care  of OP no.1 they would have given a complaint number to him and also sent an email. The complainant has not produced any such email or complaint number  which proves that the complainant is making a false claim We thoroughly perused the file  and find that the OP no.2 has not produced on record any cogent and reliable  evidence which could prove that the problems in the mobile set of the complainant are not due to manufacturing defect and same are curable .  We feel that the complainant has fully proved his case by producing cogent evidence on record.   

6.             For the reasons recorded above, we  allow the complaint and direct the OPs to refund the price amount of the mobile set in question i.e. Rs.23500/- to the complainant subject to return of the mobile set in question alongwith its accessories to the OPs. We further direct the OPs to pay an amount of Rs.1000/- being consolidated amount of compensation and Rs.500/- as litigation expenses.

7.             This order of ours shall be complied with within 30 days from the receipt of copy of the order. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course.                       

               Announced

                May 16, 2017

 

 

 

 ( Vinod Kumar Gulati)      (Sarita Garg)    (Sukhpal Singh Gill)                                                                                                                               Member                      Member                      President

 

 

BBS/-