Jammu and Kashmir

Jammu

CC/214/2018

ANUJ MALHOTRA - Complainant(s)

Versus

MANIK COMMUNICATION - Opp.Party(s)

CHETAN MISRI

24 Oct 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,JAMMU

(Constituted under J&K Consumer Protection Act,1987)

                                                          .

 Case File No.             :   25/DFJ                

 Date of  Institution   : 03-05-2018                   

 Date of Decision       :  23-10-2018

 

Anuj Malhotra,

S/O Pardeep Malhotra,

R/O 4-Neelam Colony,Toph Morh,

Patoli Mangotrian,Jammu.

                                                                                                                Complainant

                V/S

 

1.M/S Manik Communication,

   Opposite Punjab and Sind Bank,

   Rehari Chungi,Jammu.

2.Apple India Private Limited,

    Through its Country Sales Manager,

    Office at:-N 24,19^th Floor Concorde Tower-C,

  UB City, Vitta Mallya Road, Banglore-560001-India.

3.Apple Service Centre,Office at F1 Infosolutions

  & Services Pvt.Ltd. 168A,Sec.1, Chahal Complex,

   Railway Road,Gandhi Nagar,Extension,

  Nanak Nagar.

                                                                                                                                      Opposite parties

CORAM

                  Khalil Choudhary              (Distt.& Sessions Judge)   President

                  Ms.Vijay Angral                                                                  Member

                  Mr.Ghulam Sarwar Chouhan                                         Member

 

In the matter of: Complaint under section 10 of J&K Consumer Protection Act 1987.

      

Mr.Chetan Misri, Advocate for complainant, present

Mr.Arvind Khajuria,Advocate for OP2,present.

Mr.Sushant Samnotra,Advocate for OP1&3,present.

                                      

                                                    ORDER

 

                           The present complaint is filed by the complainant on the grounds that he purchased a  phone Apple i-Phone 7,128 GB manufactured by OP1 for a consideration of Rs.58,900/-on,23-05-2017  vide Bill No.17177(copy of bill is annexed as annexure-A)however, after some days of the purchase of handset, he started experiencing some problems in it since the handset(device)started becoming very hot after which he immediately approached concerned service centre (OP3)for the repair of said device which is provided by them but they refused to entertain the complaint of complainant and directed him to pay such amount which would enable him to replace the defected parts in the said device. That the said device had also developed certain other problems like the device started ringing at the silent mode which caused various difficulties  and at times harassment, complainant reported the mal functioning of the said device to OP No.3 but it was of no concern for them. Allegation of complainant is that on,07-04-2018 the said device stopped functioning and all its data including various important documents got deleted and on,09-04-2018 he approached OP3 and showed them the device, the staff of OP told him that some software of the device have been deleted and they need to reload the softwares.Complainant requested them to do the needful as early as possible as it has already caused hardships to the complainant and the staff members of OP3 told him to keep his handset with them for one day upon which complainant requested them to give him some receipt or job card, but OP refused to give any job card. Allegation of complainant is that he repeatedly approached OPs for rectification of defect, but the Ops failed to remove the defects, and same, according to complainant were manufacturing in nature, therefore, in the final analysis, for deficiency in service, complainant prays for refund of cost of handset to the tune of Rs. 58,900/- and in addition, prays for compensation under different heads to the tune of Rs.3.15 lacs.

                             On the other hand OP2 in his objections has stated while taking the main objection that the said Iphone was purchased from OP1 who is not an authorized dealer/reseller of OP3,on,23-05-2017 for Rs.58,900/The OP3 provides one year limited Warranty is applicable under certain conditions. The complainant who willfully destroy, damage or negligently handle a product are not eligible to claim any relief under the Act. It is pertinent to mention that complainant has never approached AASP(Apple Authorised Service Centre)i.e.Fi Info Solutions and Services Pvt.ltd.even once. If the complainant would have approached OP3 for service, the job card would have automatically generated. The complainant has failed to produce any sort of evidence in support of his claims that there was deficiency of service or un fair trade practice on the part of OP2.Lastly it is prayed that the complaint may be dismissed.

                             In so far as OP,1&3 are concerned, despite notice did not take any action to represent their  case in this Forum, either to admit the claim of complainant or to deny the same within stipulated period, provided under the Act. Thereafter, the right of the OP,1&3 to file reply was closed, vide order dated, 25-07-2018.

              The complainant adduced evidence by way of duly sworn his own affidavit and affidavits of Ramansh Billawria and Sunny Parihar,respectively.The complainant has placed on record copy of retail invoice.

                       OP2 adduced evidence by way of duly sworn affidavit of Priyesh Poovanna Country Legal Counsel Apple India Ltd.

                 We have perused case file and heard L/Cs for the parties at length.

                           To be brief, allegation of complainant is that he purchased  handset manufactured by OP2,but within warranty period, handset was marred by defects,however,despite repeated requests,OPs failed to remove  the alleged defects. On the other hand,Op,1&3 despite service of notice, did not choose to defend themselves before the Forum,therefore,their right to file written version was closed.                   

                           In so far as, allegation of complainant regarding defects in the handset are concerned and failure of OP,1&3 to remove alleged defects, same went unchallenged from OP,1&3 side.

                 In support of his allegations, complainant filed his own duly sworn evidence affidavit and affidavits of Ramansh Billawria and Sunny Parihar,respectively which are verbatim reproduction of contents of complaint,therefore,need no reiteration. Complainant has also placed on record copy of tax invoice.            

               On the other hand, OP,1&3 despite being duly served, failed to take any action to represent their case in this Forum, either to admit the claim of the complainant or to deny it, so there is no reply filed by OP,1&3 in this complaint and there is also no evidence to rebut the case of the complainant. The present case of the complainant is covered by Section 11 (2) (b) (ii)of the Consumer Protection Act,1987, which provides that in a case where the Op1&3 omits or fails to take any action to represent their case within the time given by Forum, in that situation the Forum shall settle the consumer dispute on the basis of evidence brought to its notice by the complainant. Sub-Clause (ii) of the Section 11, of Act of 1987, clearly, provides that when OP,1&3 omits or fails to take any action to represent their case before the Forum, the dispute has still to be decided on the basis of the evidence brought to its notice by the complainant.

                                From perusal of averments contained in the complaint, it is manifestly clear that from the very beginning, handset started giving trouble,whereas,despite repeated requests to Ops the handset could not be

made  workable,therefore,in our opinion once high-end hand set purchased by complainant,obviously,without any rhyme or reason, question of grouse, regarding fault of handset would not have arisen, instead of making use of it. Rather we think Ops should have redressed grievance of complainant, who spent such huge money and banked upon such multinational brand, but it seems that instead of well coming the consumer,Ops have chosen to multiply  suffering, which of course is unwarranted and unexpected from such brand. Therefore, in the light of unrebutted averments contained in the complaint and documents on record, we are of the opinion that complainant successfully made out a case of deficiency in service by OP 1&3.

                  Therefore, in view of aforesaid discussion, we are of the opinion that the complainant has succeeded in proving deficiency in service on the part of OPs,1&3,as such,OPs 1&3 are directed to refund cost of handset to the tune of Rs.58,900/.-to the complainant, who in turn returned the handset with all accessories to OP3. OPs 1&3 are further directed to pay Rs.5,000/-as compensation for mental agony and harassment and litigation charges of Rs.5000/-to the complainant. The awarded amount be deposited in this Forum within one month from the date of receipt of this order. The complaint is accordingly disposed of and file be consigned to records after its due compilation.

Announced                                                 (Khalil Choudhary)                                        

 23-10-2018                                                (Distt.& Sessions Judge)

 Agreed by                                                      President                                                      

                                                                       (District Consumer Fourm)

Ms.Vijay Angral                                                 Jammu.

Member

 

Mr.Ghulam Sarwar Chauhan

Member