BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.239 of 2014

Date of Instt. 21.07.2014

Date of Decision :23.01.2015

Parshant aged about 21 years son of Rajesh Kumar R/o Mohalla No.11, House No.29, Jalandhat Cantt.

..........Complainant

Versus

1. M/s Business Bay, Ground Floor, 182-R, Model Town, Jalandhar through its Manager.

2. Mobile.Com & Gigt Centre, 23, Ganga Road, Jalandhar Cantt, through its Prop./Partner.

3. Avtech Digital Equipments Pvt Ltd, R-7B, Ist Floor, Near ICICI Bank, Green Park, Delhi.

.........Opposite parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Present: Sh.Ashish Goyal Adv., counsel for complainant.

Opposite parties exparte.

Order

J.S Bhatia (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, against the opposite parties on the averments that the complainant purchased a Apple mobile Iphone 5S Model No.A1530 having IMEI No.358844056315509 bill No.6505 dated 4.3.2013 of Rs.53500/- from opposite party No.2, who is the authorized agent/retailer of the opposite party No.3. The opposite party No.3 is the manufacturer/distributor of Apple Iphone and opposite party No.2 is authorized agent/retailer of the opposite party No.3. The opposite party No.1 is approved and authorized service centre under the care, supervision and the administrative control of opposite party No.3. After 15 days from the purchase of the said mobile, the complainant found some defect in receiver which was not working. Accordingly the complainant had given his mobile set for repairs to the authorized service centre on 19.3.2014 vide job sheet No.J2250N242. At the time of taking his handset, authorized service centre checked the mobile set and assured the complainant that his mobile set well be delivered on next day. The complainant approached the earlier authorized service centre/opposite party No.1 in order to take the delivery of his mobile after under going necessary repairs on the next day and till date the said mobile is lying with the opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.1 has not delivered the said mobile to the complainant after repeated requests and demands by the complainant. There is a manufacturing defect in mobile set, since the date of its purchase and due to the said defect, mobile set of the complainant is not working properly. The complainant also served a legal notice dated 13.6.2014 through his counsel to the opposite parties calling them to replace the mobile set of the complainant alongwith Rs.20,000/- as damages for the loss suffered by complainant on account of mental tension, harassment and agony but the opposite parties have not given any reply to the legal notice. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite parties to give him new mobile set in lieu of old one. He has also claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

2. Notice of this complaint was given to the opposite parties but they did not appear inspite of notice and as such they were proceeded against exparte.

3. In support of his complaint, learned counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit Ex.CA alongwith copies of document Ex.C1 to Ex.C6 and closed evidence.

4. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the learned counsel for the complainant.

5. Complainant purchased the mobile handset in question from opposite party No.2 vide retail invoice dated 4.3.2014 Ex.C1 for Rs.53500/-. It is in the affidavit Ex.CA of the complainant that after some days from the purchase of the said mobile, he found some defects in receiver which was not working and accordingly he had given his mobile set for repair to authorized service centre on 19.3.2014 vide job sheet no.J2250N242. It is further in his affidavit that he approached authorized service centre i.e opposite party No.1 in order to take delivery of his mobile after necessary repair on next day but till date the said mobile is lying with opposite party No.1 and it has not delivered the said mobile to the complainant after repeated requests and demands. It is further in his affidavit that there is manufacturing defect in the mobile set since the date of its purchase and due to said defect, mobile set was not working properly. Ex.C2 is service job sheet dated 19.4.2014 issued by opposite party No.1. Opposite parties have not come present to contest the claim of the complainant. The mobile set is lying in the custody of opposite party No.1 which is stated to be authorized service centre of opposite party No.3. So from un-rebutted evidence adduced by complainant, his version stand extalished.

6. In view of above discussion, the present complaint is accepted and opposite parties No.1 and 3 are directed to give new mobile handset of the same make and model to the complainant or to refund its price to him within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The complainant is also awarded Rs.4000/- in lump sum on account of compensation and litigation expenses. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia

23.01.2015 Member President