Delhi

West Delhi

CC/16/501

RAVI MISHRA - Complainant(s)

Versus

KARTIK ELECTRONICS - Opp.Party(s)

07 Nov 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-III: WEST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI, C-BLOCK, COMMUNITY CENTRE, PANKHA ROAD, JANAK PURI NEW DELHI

 

CC-501/16

In the matter of :-

Ravi Mishra

S/o Sh. Vinod Mishra

R/o 71 & 72, SawyamSidha Colony,

West Punjabi Bagh,

New Delhi-110026.                                                                         ……..Complainant

Versus

Kartik Electronics

Shop No. 1, Pkt-2,

Opp. ApniRashoi& Pocket-3, Gurudwara,

Paschim Puri,New Delhi-110063.

Through its Proprietor/partner.

 

2. Apple India Pvt. Ltd.

19th Floor, Concorde Tower C,

UB City, No. 24, Vittal Mallya Road,

Bangalore, Karnataka -560001

Through its Director/Manager

 

3. M/s Unicorn Info Solution Pvt. Ltd.

GF-43, Ground floor backside

Pacific mall, Subhash Nagar

New Delhi-110018                                                  …....Opposite Parties

 

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:    JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:           DATE OF DECISION:

25.07.2016 17.10.2022 07.11.2022

 

Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, President

Ms.Richa Jindal, Member (Female)

Mr. Anil Kumar Koushal, Member (General)

Order passed by Richa Jindal, Member

 

 

 

 

ORDER

1. The complainant has filed a present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986. Brief facts of the complaint are as follows:

1. The complainant is a resident of the above address.
2. The opposite party No.1 is the dealer and retail seller & selling mobile phonesmaking Apple under the name and style ofM/s Kartik Electronics situated at the above-said address.
3. The opposite party No.2 is the manufacturer/importer of the Apple mobile handset in India under the name Apple India Pvt. Ltd. having its office at the above address.
4. The opposite party no.3 is the authorized service centre of OP No.2
5. The complainant purchased an Apple iPhone mobile handset model 5S Gray 16GB No. 352086076964058 dated 08.05.2016 vide bill/invoice No. 13795 for Rs. 21,990/- from opposite party No.1.
6. The said mobile handset was got financed by M/S Sparsh Finance & leasing Company and the complainant has also paid finance/file charges in this regard.
7. After purchasingthe said mobile handset,on the same day, when the complainant tried to switch it on, its screen turned blue and there was no display of any kind on the screen.
8. The complainant immediately approached the opposite party No.1on 09.05.16 and lodged his complaint verbally. The opposite party No.1 directed him to visit the authorised service centre of Apple company i.e OP No.3.
9. The complainant went to OP No.3 on dated 09.05.2016 at 1:00 p.m. and handed over the defective phone handset to the service centre. The officials of the above said service centre returned the phone handset to the complainant without removing /repairing the defect after one week.
10. The complainant on 18.05.2016 sent an E-mail to the opposite party No.2 at Bangalore and to one Mr Ramesh Chandra, who is stated to be a representative of Apple phones mentioning the defect and the problem with a complaint that fraud has been played by OP No.1 with the complainant and defective mobile handset has been given to the complainant.
11. The complainant received a response to his E-mail on 19.05.16 from OP No.2 and the complainant was assured by the OP that they will consider the complaint of the complainant but nothing fruitful came out.
12. Thereafter there was no response from opposite parties No.1 and 2 neither did they care to rectify the defect or replace the mobile handset of the complainant. The complainant through his Counsel sent a legal notice dated 08.06.16 to the opposite parties No.1 and 2 by registered post and through courier mentioning each and every detail in the notice.
13. On 23-06-2016, the Counsel of the complainant received an E-mail from one Helen Leonard, Executive relations EMEIA of Apple Distribution International, Holy Hill Industrial Estate, Holy Hill, Cork, the Republic of Ireland in which she stated that OP No.3 tested the mobile handset and determined that the device had an unauthorized modification.
14. The complainant through his Counsel sent a reply to the above-said E-mail to Helen Leonard, Executive relations EMEIA and try to make her understand that there was no occasion or reason for the complainant to make unauthorized modificationsto the mobile phone handset.
15. In fact, OP No.1 has sold a defective phone handset above noted to the complainant and thereafter, the entire story placed by the opposite party is a cooked-up story just to deny the legitimate right of the consumer/complainant to get his handset replaced/repaired.
16. The phone handset was purchased by the complainant on 08.05.16 and was found defective on the same day and was taken to the retail dealer and deposited with the authorized service centre above mentioned on the next day i.e. 09.05.16. Therefore, there was no reason or occasion for the complainant to make any unauthorized modification. Moreover, the phone handset was purchased for the normal use of the complainant and not for any modification.
17. The complainant is running from pillar to post as he has been cheated and fraud has been played upon him since a defective phone handset has been sold to the complainant by OP No.1 and the complainant had paid his hard earn money against the said purchase.
18. The opposite parties had adopted unfair trade practices by selling the defective phone handset to the complainant. Due to unfair trade practice of the opposite parties, the complainant has suffered harassment, mental tension and agonies and on this account, the complainant is liable to be compensated by the opposite parties Rs. 50,000/- besides the cost of the mobile handset or replacement of the handset with a new mobile handset. Hence this Complaint, wherein the complainant sought the following relief:-

-Direct the opposite party to either replace the defective Apple iPhone mobile handset model 58 Gray 16GB No. 352086076964058 with a new one or refund the bill amount of Rs.21,990/- along with interest @ 18% per annum and finance/file charges including other levies.

-Direct opposite parties to pay the complainant a sum of rupees 50,000/- as compensation for the harassment mental agony and humiliation faced alongwith a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as cost of litigation.

 

2. Accordingly, on 28/07/2016 after hearing arguments on admission and thereafter again on 8/09/2016, notice was issued to OPs returnable on 04/11/2016, whereinOP No.2 & 3 appeared before the commission and took time for filing a reply, whereas OP no.1 failed to appear before Commission despite service of notice. Even the tracking report of the duly receipt of notice of the same has been placed on record on 04/11/2016.
3. OP No.1 was also served through court notice but OP No.1 didn’t turn up and ignored the court notice. This act of the OPs clearly shows that the OPs are avoiding/disrespecting the court proceedings although they have been duly served.

 

4. In M/s. Madan and Co. Vs. Wazir Jaivir Chand AIR 1989 SCC 630, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held “That if a registered letter addressed to the person at his residential address does not get served in the normal course and is returned, it can only be attributed to the addressee's conduct. If he is staying away for some time all that he has to do is to leave necessary instructions with the postal authorities either to detain the letters addressed to him for some time until he returns or to forward them to the address where he has gone or to deliver them to some other person authorized by him.” Further, Hon’ble Apex Court in State of M.P. Vs. Hira Lal &Ors. (1996) 7 SCC 523 has held that notices returned with postal remarks “Not available in the House”, “House Locked” and “Shop Closed", must be deemed that the notices have been served on the OPs. Accordingly, OP No.1 proceeded ex parte on 04-11-2016.
5. On 26/07/2017, OP No. 3 filed a reply and the matter was adjourned to 27/02/2017 for filing a reply of OP No.2 subject to a cost of Rs 500/-. Brief facts of the reply on behalf of OP No.3 are as follows:-

1. The instant complaint raises disputed questions of facts and law and as such only Civil Courts have proper jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the questions raised therein after a proper and elaborate trial.
2. The complainant is not the consumer and is not covered under the Consumer Protection Act.
3. This Hon'ble Forum even otherwise, has no territorial jurisdiction as no cause of action took.
4. The complaint petition does not disclose any cause of action. The complaint is liable to be dismissed under section 26 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
5. The present complaint is liable to be dismissed on account of mis-joinder of the party as the complainant has filed the present complaint on the ground of deficiency of services by the opposite party. It is pertinent to mention here that opposite party No.3 is a mere service centre of opposite party No.2. and opposite party No.3 has nothing to do with the alleged claim of the complainant.
6. The complainant has purchased the product of an APPLE IPHONE from the opposite party No.1.
7. The complainant had visited opposite party No.3 with the device having a blue screen and hanging problem on 09.05.2016. Opposite party No.3, as per the process and guidelines of Apple, registered the device to Apple Screening Centre for a further check on the same day and the device of the complainant failed in screening by the screening Centre on 11th May 2016 and as per the Screening Centre "IPHONE FOUND DEVOICE COMPONENT CONNECTOR TAMPERED FOUND DEVICE UNAUTHORIZED MODIFICATION". It is pertinent to mention here that as per the screening centre remarks device was ineligible for any services and it was a Non-Tangible Repair.
8. During the verification and confirmation of the genuine part of the iPhone and during the screening of the device, the opposite party No.3 also performed the VMI (Visual Mechanical Inspection) and Micro Inspection with the component test as per the Apple Guidelines. It is submitted here that the subject device failed to pass the component test which is the part of Micro Inspection Process.
9. The device has unauthorised modification and this matter was also investigated by Apple Engineers who have confirmed the same and a copy of the same was also given by Helen Leonard to the complainant,
10. As per the guidelines of Apple India Pvt. Ltd. during the screening of the device, if iPhone found any unauthorised modification, the device is ineligible for any services and the device of the complainant unauthorised modification has the devices.
11. The complainant has not come to this Hon'ble Forum with clean hands and has concealed the material facts from this Hon'ble Forum. Therefore, the instant complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.
12. The complainant has not done any negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties No.2 and 3, hence the complaint is not maintainable against the respondent.
13. OP No.3 prayed that the complaint of the complainant may please be dismissed with costs, in view of the submissions made above and in the interest of justice.

 

4.     Thereafter despite various opportunities, OP No. 2 did not appear, hence proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 27.02.2017.

5. That a rejoinder was submitted by the complainant to the reply of OP No.3 on 8/8/2017. The complainant has also filed his evidence by way of the affidavit affirming the facts alleged in the complaint. The complainant has filed his evidence by way of his affidavit and he has relied on the following documents:

- Copy of the bill/invoice is Exhibit CW1/1.

- Copy of the service report/job card dated 09-05-2016 is Exhibit CW1/2.

- Copy of the delivery report from the Service centre is Exhibit CW1/3.

- Copy of e-mail dated 18-05-2016 and its acknowledgement reply dated 18-05-2016 are Exhibit CW1/4 & CW1/5.

- Copy of the reply through E-mail dated 19-05-2016 is Exhibit CW1/6.

- Copy of legal notice dtd 08-06-2016 and its postal receipts are Exhibit CW1/7 (Colly)

• Copy of e-mail dated 23-06-2016 is Exhibit CW1/8.
• Copy of the reply sent on behalf of the complainant through email dated 24-06-2016 is Exhibit CW1/9.

 7.      on 22/12/2017, the complainant and OP no.2 moved a joint application wherein they state that the exparte order against OP -2 was set aside by the Hon’ble State commission vide order dated 28/11/2017 subject to cost of Rs 5000/-. OP no.2 accordingly paid the cost as well as their reply on the same day, wherein OP No.2 took the following preliminary objections:

1. The complaint is malafide, devoid of merit and contradicts established principles of law. It is a common market principle and also an established position of law that consumers who wilfully negligently handle a product are not eligible to claim any relief under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. To be specific, when consumers cause damage to products by external factors which are not associated with the manufacturing/inherent condition of the product and such which acts are in complete disregard to and in breach of the warranty policies of manufacturers (in the instant case "the Apple warranty") cannot claim relief under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is stated that the provisions and terms of the Warranty will apply only if the same has been inspected and certified by an authorised service provider of the OP2 stating the iPhone in question is eligible for free services.

 

2. It is stated that the OPI is known for its consumer support system not only in India but across the world. The averments and circumstances clearly show that the complainant has shown his iPhone 6 to the AASP and was informed of the stage. Secondly, the complainant has not provided any sort of evidence to show that the iPhone is allegedly defective nor is there any expert evidence provided by the complainant to show the same. Lastly, the iPhone 6 of the complainant is out of warranty service and the complainant cannot get it either serviced or replaced as per the warranty provisions. Hence this complaint is liable to be dismissed.

 

3. As per the terms of the Apple Warranty the manner in which a customer can avail warranty (within the warranty period) is as follows:
   1. "Please access and review the online help resources described below before seeking warranty service. If the Apple Product is still not functioning properly after making use of these resources, please contact an Apple representative or, if applicable, an Apple owned retail store ("Apple Retail") or AASP, using the information provided below. An Apple representative or AASP will help determine whether your Apple Product requires service and, if it does, will inform you how Apple will provide it. When contacting Apple via telephone, other charges may apply depending on your location".

 

2. This makes it clear that the Complainant in order to have his iPhone replaced or serviced as per the warranty would have to get it inspected by the Service Personnel of the OP1 to certify its defects. However, the Complainant did not do the same. Thus, the alleged defects of the complainant could not be identified by the complainant, hence rendering its iPhone not eligible for the warranty.

 

3. The Complainant is also guilty of materially concealing and suppressing material facts and has approached this Hon'ble Forum with unclean hands with the sole intent of deceiving this Hon'ble Forum. It is specifically submitted that the Complainant's suppression and concealment is evident from the fact that cogent, technical factors show that the Complainant has failed to prove its complaint nor has he provided any sort of evidence to support its claim of deficiency of service.

 

4. The complainant has not produced any receipt/service report/ email to show that the said device had issues relating to a manufacturing defect. The Complainant is making false averments in order to support his claim.

 

5. The Complainant went to the OP3 at 1 PM on 9-5-2016 and the Complainant sent an email on 18-5-2016. There is no loss or damage suffered by the Complainant, his allegations are not true. The device when tested was found to be having unauthorised modifications. The warranty terms which were obligated to be abided by every consumer clearly say that the device shall only be serviced with an authorised service provider failure will lead to tampering withthe device and defects in the unit tampered with. The service report annexed clearly says that iPhone in question was tampered with "screening centre found unauthorised modifications. Found connector damaged inside. Device is ineligible for any service, Device collected by the customer as it is". Hence it is important to note herein that the Complainant was clearly instructed about the condition of his iPhone and yet he had filed this frivolous complaint

 

6. The customer support of OP2 informed the Complainant vide the said email that it would check its records and revert back with regard to the said issue. There is no mention that they would consider the said complaint. The complainant is making misleading statements.

 

7. The Complainant was informed vide email dated 23-6-2016 that the device was out of warranty as there were unauthorised modifications found on it by OP3.

 

8. The Complainant's counsel had responded vide email dated 24-6-2016. All the other averments are denied as false. The complainant was well aware of the fact that he had made unauthorised modifications in his iPhone and the same was also mentioned in the service reports issued to him.

 

1. The complainant has purchased the said iPhone on 8-5-2016 and deposited it with OP3 for alleged issues on 9-5-2016. The complainant has failed to prove that the iPhone was defective and there were deficient services provided by the OP2. The findings on the iPhone were found by OP3 and the same is produced in the service reports issued, which clearly show that the device had illegal modifications on it. Thus, it was rendered out of warranty.

 

10. The complainant has not provided a shred of evidence to support its averments, on this ground itself this complaint is liable to be dismissed. Secondly, OP2 is not within the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Forum. Hence this complaint is liable to be dismissed.
11. If there was a genuine defect in the said iPhone, it should be proved with expert evidence. In the event they refused the complainant’s iPhone, The complainant did not follow any of the above-mentioned methods as he was aware that there are no defects in his iPhone and finally allegedly sent a legal notice. The complainant has not followed the provisions mentioned in the warranty, hence he cannot claim the replacement/service of his iPhone in such a situation. Hence this complaint is liable to be dismissed. It has been held by various Forums that "Adherence to the instructions contained in the warranty manual is a pre-requisite for admission of the case of manufacturing defect". Similarly, in the present case, there is evidence of the complainant having followed the warranty provisions.

 

• The service report clearly states that the iPhone in question had unauthorised modifications. The head office of OP2 is in Bangalore and this has been filed in Delhi, hence there is no jurisdiction.

 

13. In light of the above-made submissions, the present complaint deserves dismissal for misusing the provisions of law, warrants imposition of heavy costs on the Complainant for such mischievous and irresponsible acts as a mark of example to such other dubious consumers, who leave no stones unturned to take unwarranted benefit of equity jurisdiction. The Complainant has failed to establish any fault on the part of the OP2 and the Complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint against the OP2.

 

• At the outset, it is pertinent to mention that iPhones sold in India by Opposite Party No.2 (OP2) through their authorized dealers/resellers are known for their cutting-edge technology and utmost customer satisfaction. Due to the said attributes, the iPhone 5 is one of the largest-selling devices iPhone 5 in the world and India. The said iPhone 5 undergoes strict quality tests to ensure that the said products maintain high standards to ensure that they do not fail to meet industry standards. It is also submitted that the OP2 is a world-renowned market and innovation leader and has been the flag-bearer of technological advancements in the telecommunication devices, computing and communications space.

 

• WHEREFORE it is humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Forum be pleased to dismiss this complaint as the present complaint has no cause of action, bears no substance and merit and deserves to be dismissed in limine.

 

8.       Thereafter OP No.2 filed an Affidavit by way of evidence on 25/05/2018. Thereafter the matter was adjourned for the filing of written arguments on behalf of both parties. OP No.2 has filed their evidence by way of their affidavit and he has relied on the following documents:

• Board Resolution is Exhibit R-1
• The warranty Provision is Exhibit R-2
• The copy of images shared by the screening centre is Exhibit R-3

 

9.     OP No.3 filed their evidence and paid the cost of Rs 1,000/- to the complainant.

10. Complainant, Opposite party no.2 & 3 filed written versions respectively.
11. OP no.2 in their written arguments relied on the following judgements :

1. The National State Commission in M/s Tata Motors Ltd Versus Mrs Surjit Kaur & Others has held that adherence to the instructions contained in the warranty manual is a pre-requisite for admission of the case of a manufacturing defect. Further, the State Consumer Forum Tamil Nadu in N.R. Jayachandran Versus FORD India Limited had held that the Owners instruction manual should be followed.
2. The Supreme Court of India in C.N. Anantharam v. Fiat India Ltd. and Ors that as the consumer failed to prove any manufacturing defect in the product and he is not liable to claim compensation for the same.
3. The State Consumer Forum, Punjab in Lagger Industries Ltd. vs. Diamler Chrysler India Pvt. Ltd. it was held that in absence of any manufacturing defects consumer cannot claim benefits/ relief. A clear perusal of these authorities established the fact that the Complainant did not follow the instructions mentioned in the Warranty, thus the APPLE are not obligated to service/replace his I Phone as per the Warranty policy.
4. The Supreme Court of India in C.N. Anantharam v. Fiat India Ltd. and Ors that as the consumer failed to prove any manufacturing defect in the product and he is not liable to claim compensation for the same. The State Consumer Forum, Punjab in Lagger Industries Ltd. vs. Diamler Chrysler India Pvt. Ltd. it was held that in absence of any manufacturing defects consumer cannot claim benefits/ relief. A clear perusal of these authorities established the fact that the Complainant did not follow the instructions mentioned in the Warranty, thus the 1" Opposite Party is not obligated to service/replace his iPhone as per the Warranty policy. The Complainant has miserably failed to prove that there was deficiency of service or any unfair trade practice on part of the 1st Opposite Party.
5. Further, the Hon'ble National Consumer Forum in M/s. Tata Motors Pvt. Ltd vs. Surjit Kaur & others has clearly held that in order to get service of products within warranty the Complainant would have to adhere to the warranty provisions There is no iota of evidence to support the fact that the Opposite Parties have failed to provide services to the Complainant. It is evident that he has contacted this Hon'ble Forum with unclean hands and the Opposite Parties have not failed to provide services to him and have performed their duty. The Complainant is now blatantly claiming negligence and deficiency of service, which is not admissible. The Complainant has clearly not followed the provisions of the Warranty hence, the claim for deficiency and negligence does not hold water.

 

12. The complainant filed his written submission on 6.05.2019. Finally, oral arguments were heard on 06-07-2022. We have carefully gone through the record of the case and have heard the submissions of the complainant.

 

13. After going through the material placed on record very short question is involved whether the complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed in the complaint.

 

14. Admittedly, the complainant had purchased one brand new model 5S Gray 16GB No. 352086076964058 dated 08.05.2016 vide bill/invoice No. 13795 for Rs. 21,990/- marketed by opposite party No.1 exhibited as Ex.CW1/1. when the complainant tried to use it, its screen turned blue and there was no display of any kind on the screen. Ex.CW1/2is the Service Record/job sheet dated 09/05/2016, which shows that the mobile set was under warranty and the fault describes as a 'blue screen and hanging issue'. When the complainant immediately after purchasing said handset tried to use the same, the phone got a hanging problem. Hence, he first approached the Opposite party no.1 wherein he suggested the complainant to approach the Opposite Party No.2. The phone could not be repaired or replaced due to unauthorized modification. Further Opposite party No.3, as per the process and guidelines of Apple, registered the device to Apple Screening Centre for a further check on the same day and the device of the complainant failed in screening by the screening Centre on 11th May 2016 and as per the Screening Centre "IPHONE in question FOUND DEVOICE COMPONENT CONNECTOR TEMPERED FOUND DEVICE UNAUTHORIZED MODIFICATION". It is pertinent to mention here that as per the screening centre remarks devoice was ineligible for any services and it was a Non-Tangible Repair.

 

15. In the case of Tata Motors Ltd v Antonio Paulo Vaz and Another LL 2021 SC 105, the Supreme Court examined and looked over the dealership contract and the court observed that it was on a principal-to-principal basis. The court also noticed that Tata Motors had no knowledge of the dealer’s doings’ unfair trade practices. The Judge held,” Unless the manufacturer's knowledge is proved, a decision fastening liability upon the manufacturer would be untenable, given that its relationship with the dealer, in the facts of this case, was on the principal-to-principal basis”

 

16. We have given thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the complainant and learned counsel for respondent No.3 and have examined the record. When a person purchases a new mobile set, he expects efficient working of the handset.  Nobody would like to return the mobile set immediately after purchase and get a refund without any problem.  There must be some problems with the mobile set, which either were not explained to the complainant by OP No. 1 or there were real problems. As the dealer did not appear before the District Forum or for that matter even before this Commission, the claim of the Complainant that he was sold a defective hand set could not be rebutted. It proves that although the complainant from the very beginning approached opposite party no.1 on account of the defective set, instead of rectifying his mistake of providing defective mobile, OP No.1 started avoiding the complainant. Later on, when the complainant filed the complaint OP No.1 did not bother to attend the matter before the Commission. On the other hand,The Hon’ble Supreme Court through various judgements has observed that a manufacturer will not be liable for the fault of the dealer, unless it is proved that the manufacturer was aware of the same.
17. In our opinion, a person purchases a mobile handset, with a view to using the same, so that she/he could communicate with her/his relations, friends, and other persons acquainted with her/him, frequently. The mobile handset is the most important mode of communication.

 

18. In the instant case, the complainant was supplied with a defective mobile set subsequently. One can imagine the plight of the purchaser that he opened the box containing the mobile set supplied by the opposite parties and found it defective. he visited Opposite party no.3 wherein they declared the set defective. Again,the complainant requested for replacement/refund. The opposite party no.1 declined the request. The complainant himself in his complaint categorically put allegations on opposite party no.1. admittedly the complainant stated in his complaint the he is running from pillar to post as he has been cheated and fraud has been played upon him since a defective phone handset has been sold to the complainant by OP No.1 and the complainant had paid his hard earn money against the said purchase.It is not the case that after using a mobile phone for a reasonable period a defect was developed in the set. In this case, the mobile phone supplied was defective inherently. At least of the opposite parties should have doubly checked the replaced mobile phone before delivering it to the complainant. Given the high cost of Apple industry phones as compared to other companies’ mobile in this business.

 

19. It is a case of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service where the opposite parties are supplying defective products again and again and also refused to return the amount received.

 

20. The testimony of PW1 has gone unrebutted and unchallenged against Opposite party No.1. The complainant has proved on record the relevant documents in support of its case.

 

21. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the sworn testimony of the Complainant or the claim of the complainant. The complaint of the complainant is within the time limit since the opposite party vide its letter dated 9.05.2016 had made the complaint with regard to the defects in the said mobile in question from the complainant and also informed that OP no.3 did not provide service for removal of defects because of the fault of OP no.1. Therefore, considering the totality of the facts and circumstances and because of the unchallenged, uncontroverted and unrebutted testimony of Complainant and the documents proved on record. The complainant is entitled to a refund of the cost of the mobile; Hence, we direct the op to refund the cost of the mobile i.e., Rs 21,990/-.

 

22. In view of the above discussion, the present complaint deserves to be allowed against OP No.1 and the same is accordingly allowed. The OP No.1is directed as under:

[i] To refund Rs 21,990/- (Rupees Twenty One Thousand Nine Hundred Ninety only) to the complainant alongwith interest @ 7 % per annum from the date of filing of complaint i.e. 25/07/2016 till realization.However, the complainant is required to surrender the defective mobile phone, in question, to OP No.1 within 7 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.

[ii] To pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony & physical harassment suffered by the complainant and his family members;

[iii] To pay Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation.

 

23. Let the order be complied with by OP within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.
24. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost after receiving the application for the certified copy as per the direction received from the Hon’ble State Commission.
25. File be consigned to record room.
26.  Announced on 7 /11/2022.

 

 

(Richa Jindal)         Member

(Anil Kumar Koushal)               Member

(Sonica Mehrotra)                         President