BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.290 of 2014

Date of Instt. 22.08.2014

Date of Decision :23.01.2015

Vivek Gupta aged about 40 years son of Prem Sagar Gupta R/o H.No.319, Shaheed Udham Singh Nagar, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

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

2. Avtech Digital Equipments Pvt Ltd, R-7B, Ist Floor, Near ICICI Bank, Green Park, Delhi, through its Mg.Director.

.........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 5C Blue 16 GB having IMEI No.358552053303200 bill No.5032 dated 6.11.2013 of Rs.41,000/- from Netra Enterprises, GT Road, Panipat, who is the authorized agent/retailer of the opposite party No.2. The opposite party No.2 is the manufacturer/distributor of Apple Iphone and opposite party No.1 is approved and authorized service centre under the care, supervision and the administrative control of opposite party No.2. After some days from the purchase of the said mobile, the complainant found some defect in display which was not working. Accordingly the complainant had given his mobile set for replacement with new one to the authorized service centre on 26.3.2014 vide job sheet No.J2250N322. At the time of taking his handset, the employees of service centre checked the mobile set and assured the complainant that new mobile set will be delivered within a week. The complainant approached the earlier authorized service centre and opposite party No.1 in order to take the delivery of new mobile in place of old mobile 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 7.8.2014 through his counsel to the opposite parties calling them to replace the mobile set of the complainant alongwith Rs.10,000/- as damages for the loss suffered by complainant on account of mental tension, harassment and agony but the opposite parties has not given any reply to the legal notice. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite parties to 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.C5 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 vide retail invoice dated 6.11.2013 Ex.C1 for Rs.41,000/-. 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 display which was not working and accordingly he had given his mobile set for replacement with new one to authorized service centre on 26.3.2014 vide job sheet no.J2250N322. It is further in his affidavit that 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 26.3.2014 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.2. So from un-rebutted evidence adduced by complainant, his version stand established.

6. In view of above discussion, the present complaint is accepted and opposite parties are directed to give new mobile handset of the same make and model to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order or to refund its price to him. 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