Haryana

Ambala

CC/186/2017

Kewal Krsihan - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Dashing Mobile world - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

18 Jun 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,  PANCHKULA.                                                                                                                     

Consumer Complaint No	:	186 of 2017
Date of Institution	:	07.06.2017
Date of Decision	:	19.06.2018

Kewal Krishan S/o Late Sh.Manohar Lal, H.No.573/27, Prem Nagar, AAth Marlas, Ambala City.

                                                                                                            ….Complainant

Versus

 

1. M/s Dashing Mobile World, near Jagadhri Gate behind Indian Bank, Ambala City, Haryana-134003.
2. IQor Global Services India Pvt. Ltd., (Foirmerly as Jabil Global Services Pvt. Ltd.) Shop No.12, First Floor, Galaxy Mall, Sector-7, Ambala City, Ambala-134003.
3. Apple India Pvt. Ltd., 19^th Floor, Concorde Tower C.U.B. City No.24, Vittal Malya Rozd, Bangluru-560001, through its authorized signatory.

 

                                                                                          ….Opposite Parties

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

BEFORE:             SH. D.N. ARORA, PRESIDENT

                             SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER.

 

For the Parties:         Mr.Umesh Lakhanpal, Adv., for the complainant.

                  Ops No.1 and 2 already ex-parte.

                  Mr.Rajeev Sachdeva, Adv., for the OP No.3.

                 

ORDER

(D.N.Arora, President)

1. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant had purchased a Mobile handset having Model No.Iphone 5S 32gb silver vide IMEI No.352086075723604 from the Op No.1 for a sum of Rs.28,000/- vide bill invoice No.615 dated 07.06.2016 with warranty of one year. After 6-7 months of purchase of mobile, the mobile handset started giving problem as its starting, hanging, display and touch. The complainant approached the Op No.2 i.e. authorized service center on 14.04.2017 who solved the problem from the mobile but after lapse of one month, the mobile handset started giving problem as the touch not working. The complainant again approached the OP No.2 who retained the mobile handset vide job sheet dated 02.06.2017 and advised the complainant to come after 14 days. After 14 days, the Op No.2 gave the complainant another temporary handset for use in lieu of his original handset and till the filing of complaint, the OP No.2 did not return the handset to the complainant. This act and conduct on the part of the Ops amounts to deficiency in service. Hence, this complaint.
2. Notice was issued to the Ops No.1 and 2 through registered post but none has appeared on behalf of the Ops No.1 and 2. It is deemed to be served and the OPs No.1 and 2 were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 19.07.2017
3. Upon notice, Op No.3 appeared and filed written statement. It is submitted that the complainant purchased an iphone 5S 32 GB from the OP No.1 and guarantee could not be provided against such a product by Op No.1. The warranty of one year is to be offered by OP No.3 against all the products manufactured by them. It is submitted that after 6-7 months, the device started giving problem as hanging and restarting and on 14.4.2017, the complainant approached the OP No.2 who diagnosed the disputed device under warranty period. Thereafter, on 02.06.2017 just 4 days before when the warranty period was about to expire, the complainant approached the AASP and raised certain issues. The OP No.2 provided loaner’s device for 14 days under the Loaner’s Agreement and retained the disputed device for further diagnosis and sent the device for repair on 05.06.2017 and 08.06.2017 which was received by OP No.2 on 12.06.2018 but the complainant did not come to collect the same after giving many reminders to the complainant whereas later he demanded for a brand new handset. Even, the Ops No.2 and 3 wanted to help the complainant but he refused to accept the same and also failed to comply with the Loaner’s Agreement which says that the device must be returned within 14 days. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.3 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
4. Replication to the reply has been filed by the counsel for the complainant.
5. The counsel for the complainant tendered the evidence by way of affidavit Annexure C-A  alongwith documents Annexure C-1 to C-4 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, counsel for the Op No.3 tendered the evidence by way of affidavit Annexure R3/A  alongwith documents Annexure R3/1 to R3/3 and closed the evidence.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record carefully and minutely.
7. Admittedly, the complainant purchased an iphone 5S, 32 GB silver vide IMEI No.352086075723604 from the Op No.1 for a sum of Rs.28,000/- vide bill invoice No.615 dated 07.06.2016 (Annexure C-1) with warranty of one year. After 6-7 months of its purchase, the mobile handset started giving problem as its starting, hanging, display and touch. The complainant approached to the Op No.2 i.e. authorized service center who issued job sheet dated 11.04.2017 (Annexure C-2) with remarks that ‘VMI Pass, Micro Inspection pending’. Thereafter, the complainant again approached to the Op No.2 who issued job sheet dated 02.06.2017 (Annexure C-4) with remarks that ‘No Data Warranty’ and retained the handset of the complainant for its repair. The Op No.2 also gave another handset to the complainant for use of 14 days as per Annexure C-3.
8. On the other hand, the OP No.3 submitted that the complainant approached the OP No.2 on 02.06.2017 just 4 days before when the warranty period was about to expire and raised certain issues. The OP No.2 also provided loaner’s device for 14 days under the Loaner’s Agreement and retained the disputed device for further diagnosis and sent the device for repair on 05.06.2017 and 08.06.2017 which was received by OP No.2 on 12.06.2018 but the complainant did not come to collect the same after giving many reminders to the complainant whereas he demanded for a brand new handset. But the Op No.3 did not place on record any document to show that the mobile handset was repaired and ready for delivery. The Op No.3 also did not place on record any document to prove that the Op No.2 sent any message to the complainant that the mobile handset is ready for delivery.
9. Moreover, the Ops No.1 and 2 did not appear to contest the claim of the complainant and preferred to proceed ex-parte which draws an adverse inference against them. The non-appearance of the Ops No.1 and 2 shows that they have nothing to say in their defence or against the allegations made by the complainant. Therefore, the assertions made by the complainant go unrebutted and uncontroverted. As such, the same is accepted as correct and deficiency in service on the part of the Ops No.1 and 2 is proved.
10. Evidently the complainant had spent the money for the purchase of brand new mobile handset to facilitate himself but not for moving the service center and then this Forum for justice in the absence of proper service provided by the Ops. Even the defects in the mobile handset within warranty period of its purchase, makes pointer towards the poor quality of the product. The complainant has been deprived of use of the mobile handset. Thus, there is deficiency in service on the part of the Ops. Another factor is involved in this case, the Op No.2 has also given another handset to the complainant for use but it is not the case of the complainant he has returned the abovesaid handset to Op No.2. Hence, the complainant is duty bound to return the same to Op No.2.
11. In the light of above observations, we are of the considered opinion that the Ops are found deficient in not giving proper services to the complainant. Hence, the present complaint deserves to succeed against the Ops and the same is allowed which is assessed Rs.3000/-. The Ops jointly and severely directed as under:-
    1. To refund Rs.28,000/- as cost of mobile handset to the complainant alongwith interest 9% per annum from the date of filing of complaint i.e. 07.06.2017 till its realization subject to return the loaner’s device to the Op No.2 by the complainant.
    2. To pay Rs.3000/- to the complainant towards compensation for mental agony, physical harassment and cost of litigation.
12. This order shall be complied with by the Ops jointly and severely within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of costs and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

 

Announced on: 19.06.2018               Member                President