DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (CENTRAL)
MAHARANA PARTAP BUS TERMINAL: 5th FLOOR.
KASHMERE GATE DELHI.
No. DF / Central/ 2015
ConsumerComplaint No | : | CC 24/2013 |
Date of Institution | : | |
| | | |
Mr. Rakesh Behl
M-97
G.S. Apartments, Sector-13
Rohini, Delhi-110085
..........Complainant
Versus
1.Proprietor
Sahil Telecom,
Shop no. 126, MCD Market, Karol Bagh, Delhi
2.Managing Director,
Apple India Private Ltd
19 Floor, Concorde Tower C, UB city no 24
Vittal Mallya Road Banglore-560001
..........Respondent/OP
BEFORE
SH. RAKESH KAPOOR, PRESIDENT
SH. S. N. SHUKLA, MEMBER
ORDER
Per Sh. RakeshKapoor, President
BEFORE
SH. RAKESH KAPOOR, PRESIDENT
SH. S. N. SHUKLA, MEMBER
ORDER
Per Sh. RakeshKapoor, President
On 20.12.2012, the complainant had purchased one apple iPhone 3Gs bearing IMEI no. 012995001174819. He had purchased the iPhone from OP1 whereas OP2 is the manufacturer of the same. It is alleged by the complainant that the iphone stopped working properly on 5.8.2013 and he had brought the matter to the notice of Apple service center on 7.8.2013. He has alleged that the service center had returned the iphone to him on the plea that the warranty of this set was till 22.7.2013 as the iphone had been first activated (used) on 27.7.2012. The complainant has alleged that OP1 had sold him an old phone as a new one. He has, therefore, prayed for the refund of the amount as Rs. 19500/- along with compensation and cost of litigation.
OP1 has contested the complaint and has filed a written statement. It has claimed that the complaint is false and fabricated and is not maintainable. Para 3 of the preliminary objections of the written statement is relevant and is being reproduced as under:-
3. That the complainant has not come to this Hon’ble Forum with clean hands and has not stated the true facts and concealed the true material facts from this Hon’ble Court. It is submitted that the said mobile phone was not against any such warranty of one year and the complainant of his own made out false and frivolous story that there was one year warranty. It is apparent that the bill as produced by the complainant does not mention of any such warranty of one year. Further the bill clearly mention that the warranty and guarantee if any shall be directly against the service centre of the manufacturer and the respondent no. 1 will not be responsible for the same. It is also clearly mentioned that the responsibility of the respondent no. 1 ceases as soon as goods are handed over to the career or party and in the present case is complainant and the complainant knowingly with said terms and conditions had purchased the said mobile phone at the risk and liability of the manufacturer. It is further submitted that as per the own case of the complainant that the said mobile was purchased on 13.9.2012 and there was no complaint reported by the complainant for about 11 months period and the alleged problem of speaker as claimed by the complainant must be on account of the own mis-handling, improper use or any other reason attributed to the complainant himself and the respondent no. 1 is not liable for the same. Thus for the own negligence and carelessness the complainant cannot drag the respondent into frivolous litigation, hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed outrightly.
OP1 has contested the complaints on merits. It has not denied that it had sold away the aforesaid iphone to the complainant on 13.9.2012. It has denied that it had an old mobile set to the complainant and that its warranty had expired on 13.7.2013.
We have heard arguments advanced at the bar and have perused the record.
The complainant has placed on record an invoice dated 13.9.2012 for Rs. 19,500/- which shows that OP1 had sold away an iphone with IMEI no. 012995001174819 to the complainant. The complainant has also placed on record a document issued by the service center showing that the warranty of the iphone had expired. The warranty status shows that the iphone had been first activated on 29.7.2012 and its warranty had expired on 29.7.2003. it was for the Ops to explain as to how the warranty had expired on 29.7.2013 when the mobile set was purchased on 13.9.2012 It is therefore apparent that the complainant had been handed over an old set which was which was first activated on 29.7.2012. We, therefore, direct OP1 to pay to the complainant the cost of the set i.e. Rs. 19,500/ along with interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of filing of this complaint i.e. 19.9.2013 till payment. We also direct OP1 to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as compensation for pain and agony suffered by the complainant. We, further, direct OP1 to pay a sum of Rs. 5000 to the complainant as cost of litigation.
The OP1 shall pay this amount within a period of 30 days from the date of this order failing which they shall be liable to pay interest on the entire awarded amount @ 10% per annum. IF the OP1 fails to comply with this order, the complainant may approach this Forum for execution of the order under Section 25/27 of the Consumer Protection Act.
Copy of the order be made available to the parties as per rule. File be consigned to record room.
Announced on.....................
(S N SHUKLA) (RAKESH KAPOOR)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
