BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.437 of 2015
Date of Instt. 06.10.2015
Date of Decision : 22.12.2015
Rajesh Goyal aged about 52 years son of Kishan Lal Goyal, Legal Heir/father of deceased Parshant R/o Mohalla No.11, House No.29, Jalandhar Cantt.
..........Complainant Versus
M/s Apple India Pvt.Ltd, 19th Floor, Concorde Tower-C, UB City, No.24, Vittal Mallya Road, Bangalore.
.........Opposite party.
Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Sh.Ashwani Kumar Mehta (President)
Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)
Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)
Present: Sh.Ashish Goyal Adv., counsel for complainant.
Opposite party exparte.
Order
Ashwani Kumar Mehta (President)
1. Complainant Rajesh Goyal filed the present complaint against M/s Apple India Pvt Ltd, opposite party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act on the allegations of deficiency in service on the part of OP and for directing the OP to deliver the mobile set or to refund the price of the mobile alongwith compensation of Rs.10,000/- for harassment etc and Rs.5000/- as cost of litigation.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is that complainant purchased a Apple mobile phone 5-S Model No.A1530 having IMEI No.358844056315509 from Mobile.Com and Gift Centre, Ganga Road, Jalandhar Cantt for Rs.53,500/- vide bill No.6505 dated 4.3.2014; that OP is manufacturer/ distributor of Apple iPhone and Avtech Digital Equipment Pvt.Ltd, Model Town, Jalandhar was approved and authorized service centre under the administrative control of OP though the said service centre has been closed; that after 15 days from the purchase of said mobile, the defect in the receiver of the mobile phone developed and it was not working and complainant gave the mobile set for repair to the authorized service centre on 19.3.2014 vide job sheet No.J2250N242 and service centre assured the complainant that mobile would be delivered on the next day; that complainant contacted the service centre for delivery of mobile but till date, the mobile was not delivered to the complainant and is still lying with service centre of OP and service centre of OP have not delivered the mobile to the complainant inspite of repeated request and demand; that there was manufacturing defect in the mobile set since the date of its purchase due to which reason, the mobile was not working properly and act and conduct of the OP shows deficiency in service on part of OP for not repairing the mobile set and as such complainant is entitled for return of mobile set after repair or refund of its price alongwith compensation and litigation expenses mentioned in complaint. Hence complaint was filed.
3. After formal admission of the complaint, notice was issued to the OP and OP was declared to have been duly served but none appeared on behalf of OP and consequently OP was proceeded against exparte vide detailed order dated 17.11.2015.
4. In exparte evidence, complainant tendered his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C3 and closed exparte evidence.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the file.
6. The learned counsel for the complainant contended that mobile in dispute was purchased by Parshant son of the complainant from Mobile.Com & Gift Centre, Jalandhar Cantt on 4.3.2014 for Rs.53,500/- under receipt Ex.C2. He contended that Parshant has died and Rajesh Goyal complainant, father of Parshant is his legal heir and as such complaint has been filed by Rajesh Goyal. He contended that mobile in dispute developed defect just after 15-16 days of its purchase and service centre of the OP received the mobile from Parshant and issued job card Ex.C3 on 19.3.2014. He further contended that inspite of many visits of Parshant and also of complainant, the service centre did not return the mobile set after repair rather postponed the matter on the one or other pretext which caused harassment, mental agony to the complainant and as such complainant is entitled to return of mobile or refund of its price and also for compensation etc.
7. OP is exparte in this case. Complainant have proved cash memo Ex.C2 showing that Parshant purchased the mobile in question from Mobile.Com & Gift Centre, Jalandhar Cantt for Rs.53,500/-. Parshant has died and his death certificate is proved on the file as Ex.C1. Complainant Rajesh Goyal is father of the Parshant and is legal heir and in this view of the matter and also being father of deceased Parshant, he is entitled to file the complaint against the OP. Complainant have also proved the job card Ex.C3 dated 19.3.2014 which shows that mobile set was produced before the service centre as its receiver was not working and as per complainant, the mobile set has not been returned to him after repair inspite of repeated visits. This job card further shows that the mobile set in question developed defect just after 15 days of its purchase and Parshant spent a big amount of Rs.53,500/- for the mobile set and mobile is lying with the service centre of the OP for about more than 9 months. This conduct of the OP must have caused harassment, agony and mental tension to the complainant. It is duty of the OP to make the mobile set in workable condition particularly during warranty period and mobile in question developed defect only after 15 days of its purchase. As such, complainant is entitled to repair of the mobile set to make it in workable condition or refund of its price and compensation for harassment suffered by him. Otherwise also, notice was given to OP and OP was declared to have been duly served in the complaint but neither the OP nor anybody else on its behalf appeared in the Forum in order to contest the complaint which shows that OP have nothing to say against the claim of the complainant.
8. Therefore, in the light of above discussion, the complaint is allowed with cost in favour of the complainant and against the OP and OP is directed to repair the mobile set in question and to make it in workable condition within one month from the date of receipt of copy of order. OP is also burdened with Rs.4000/- as compensation on account of harassment and mental agony and Rs.1000/- as litigation expenses. If the OP failed to return the mobile set after repair within two months from the date of receipt of copy of order then OP is directed to refund the price of the mobile set to the complainant and if mobile is returned after repair then warranty be also extended for the period for which it remained in the possession of the OP. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Dated Parminder Sharma Jyotsna Thatai Ashwani Kumar Mehta
22.12.2015 Member Member President
