Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/14/872

Chanpreet Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Apple India Pvt.Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Gurpreet Singh

15 Apr 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

                                                C.C.No.872 of 19.12.2014

                                                          Date of decision:15.04.2015 

 

Chanpreet Singh s/o Sh.Joga Singh, House No.416, Block-9, Mohalla Bajra, Chauri Sarak, Ludhiana.

                                                          ….Complainant.

                                       Versus  

                   

1.M/s Apple India Pvt. Ltd., 19^th Floor, Concorde Tower, C, UB City No.24, Vittal Mallya Road, Bangalore, Pin Code 560001.

2.Sh.Parveen Kumar, Info Solution and Services Private Limited, 58-a, Ist Floor, Model Gram, Near Kochar Market Chowk, Ludhiana.

3.Sh.Gurpreet, Prop. of M/s.Gadgets 4 U, Hargobind Marg, Mohar Singh Nagar, Adj.Reliance Fresh, Ludhiana.

                                                …Opposite parties

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE

CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Quorum:    Sh. R.L.Ahuja, President.

                   Sh.Sat Paul Garg, Member.

                                     

Present:       Sh.Gurpreet Singh Arora, Adv. for complainant.

Ops ex-parte.

                                                ORDER

R.L.AHUJA, PRESIDENT.  

 

1.                Present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been filed by Sh.Chanpreet Singh(hereinafter in short to be described as ‘Complainant’) against M/s Apple India Pvt. Ltd., 19^th Floor, Concorde Tower, C, UB City No.24, Vittal Mallya Road, Bangalore and others(hereinafter in short to be described ‘Ops’), directing them to either to replace the mobile or to pay the amount of Rs.25,000/- as per the present rate of the mobile and pay the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- alongwith litigation expenses to the complainant.

2.                In brief, the case of the complainant is that complainant purchased mobile set Apple I-phone 4S 8GB of white colour bearing IMEI NO.013539007853387 vide bill No.596 dated 5.7.2014 from OP3. After two months from its purchase, when complainant tried to open the sim card from the said mobile, then it created some problem and did not open the same and due to this, complainant approached OP2 for the said problem to open the sim card and when the complainant handed over his mobile set to the official of OP2, then the he took the same for check it in a separate room and when he came out, then he told the complainant that the Jeck of the mobile has broken down. At this, the complainant was very shocked and said that the jeck of the mobile of the complainant had not broken and it was broken from OP, who said to the complainant that the complainant will pay a sum of Rs.10,800/- to him, only than the mobile will be repaired. The complainant again requested OP2 that his mobile was OK when the same was handed over to his officials and the Jeck has been broken from the hands of the officials but OP2 refused to accede the genuine request of the complainant and then the complainant refused to accept the said mobile and requested him to replace his said mobile and several times, complainant approached the Ops through his senior executives and technical expert, but the Ops all the times, refused to listen the genuine requests of the complainant. Such act and conduct of OPs is claimed to be deficiency in service on their part by the complainant. Hence, this complaint.

3.                Upon notices of the complaint, despite service, OP2 failed to appear and was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 10.2.2015 by this Forum, whereas, notices of the complaint were sent to OP1 and OP3 through registered on 27.02.2015 but the same were not received back and as such, after expiry of 30 days of period, Op1 and OP3 were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dt.27.03.2015 by this Forum.  

4.                In order to prove his case, complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit as Ex.CA alongwith documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5 and closed his ex-parte evidence.

5.                We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the complainant and have very carefully perused the evidence on the file.

6.                Perusal of the record reveals that the complainant has placed on record his affidavit in evidence as Ex.CA, in which, he has reiterated all the allegations made by him in the complaint. Further, the complainant has proved on record the documents Ex.C1 copy of bill No.596 dated 05.07.2014 issued by the OP3 to the complainant qua the purchase of the mobile handset in question on payment of Rs.25,000/- by the complainant, Ex.C2 copy of registered legal notice dated 01.11.2014 sent to the Ops by the complainant through his counsel and Ex.C3 to Ex.C5 copies of postal receipts.

7.                Since, the OPs did not appear and contest the present complaint, so evidence adduced by the complainant goes unchallenged and unrebutted.

8.               From the allegations of the complainant as well as the evidence on record, it is apparently clear that complainant had purchased the mobile handset in question i.e. Apple I-Phone 4S 8GB of white colour bearing IMEI No.013539007853387 vide bill No.596 dated 5.7.2014 Ex.C1 from OP3. Further, it is proved fact on record that mobile in question was giving problem to the complainant as sim card of the said mobile create some problem as the same did not open, as a result of which, the complainant had approached the OP2 for curing the defect of the same. However, as per the allegations of the complainant that when the complainant had approached the OP2 for repair of the mobile, who had checked the same in a separate room and when officials of OP2 came out, then he had told that the jeck of the mobile has been broken down and demanded the amount of Rs.10,800/- for repairing of the same. It is proved fact on record that the mobile of the complainant is within the warranty period. Further, it is a proved fact on record that despite serving a legal notice dated 01.11.2014 by the complainant upon the Ops and despite repeated requests made by the complainant to the Ops to replace or repair the handset in question, Ops failed to do so.

9.                Since, it is proved on record that the OPs have failed to carry out the necessary repair in the mobile of the complainant despite his repeated requests and despite serving a legal notice and due to non working of the mobile of the complainant, the complainant has failed to use the mobile in question, which he had purchased for his personal use. Thus, Ops are proved to be deficient in rendering proper services.

10.              In view of the above discussion, by allowing this complaint, we direct OPs to carry out the necessary repair of the mobile of the complainant, which was purchased by the complainant vide invoice Ex.C1 and make it proper functional to the entire satisfaction of the complainant by replacing the defective part and Jeck and other parts, if any, required without any costs or in the alternative, to replace the mobile set of the complainant with new one of the same make and model without any costs or in case, the same is not available, to make refund of the entire amount of mobile in question to the complainant and further, for causing sufferance and harassment to the complainant, OPs are directed to pay compensation and litigation costs compositely assessed as Rs.2500/-(Two thousand and five hundred only) to the complainant. Order be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter, file be consigned to the record room.

 

                 (Sat Paul Garg)                          (R.L.Ahuja)

                    Member                                    President 

Announced in Open Forum.

Dated:15.04.2015

Gurpreet Sharma