DISTRICT   CONSUMER   DISPUTES   REDRESSAL FORUM,GURGAON-122001

                                                                                                              Consumer Complaint No: 148 of 2016                                                                                                                       Date of Institution: 24.02.2016/29.02.2016                                                                                                                                          Date of Decision:  16.06.2016

Dheeraj Yadav s/o Shri Din Dayal, Village Fazilpur Badli, P.O.Farrukhnagar, District Gurgaon, Haryana.

                                                                                                ….Complainant.

                                                Versus

M/s Fone Zone Nxt G-9, Aggarwal City Plaza, Sector-3, M2K,  Rohini, Delhi through its proprietor.

M/s Fone Zone Nxt, having its H.O. at G-34, Vikas Surya Mall, Mangalam, Palace,M2K, Rohini, Delhi.

B2X Service Solution India Pvt. Ltd, Authorized Service Provider, S-114, 1st Floor, Sahara Mall, Mehrauli Road, Gurgaon-122 001.

                                                                                              ..Opposite parties

Complaint under Sections 12 & 14 of Consumer Protection Act,1986                                                                 

BEFORE:     SHRI SUBHASH GOYAL, PRESIDENT

SMT JYOTI SIWACH, MEMBER

Present:        Shri Dheeraj Yadav, complainant in person.

                    OP-1 to OP-3 exparte.

ORDER       SUBHASH GOYAL, PRESIDENT.

The case of the complainant, in brief, is that   he has purchased iphone Model 5-S from OP-1 for a sum of Rs.39,000/- vide invoice No15506 dated 31.03.2015 with one year warranty. However, the said mobile phone became hot red and there was lot of fire coming out of the same and as a result of which it fell down from the hands of the complainant on the floor and got damaged without recognition. The complainant immediately contacted OP-1 and deposited the said iphone for repair with OP-3 but they were lingering on the matter on one pretext or the other to repair the handset or replace the same and lastly, they showed their inability to replace the mobile phone by saying that said phone was purchased on 31.03.2015 but their GSX record shows that the warranty was up to 27.01.2016. The complainant has convinced that the manufacturing defect in the handset cannot be set right in spite of best efforts put by opposite parties and it need complete replacement of iphone. The complainant requested the opposite parties to accept his genuine claim but of no use. Thus, there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant prayed that the opposite parties be directed to replace the handset with new one and to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/-. The complaint is supported with an affidavit and the copy of purchase invoice dated 31.03.2015 Ex.C-1 and jobcard dated 01.02.2016 Ex.C-2.

2                 Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite parties. However, opposite parties failed to appear before this Forum and thus, they were proceeded exparte vide order 12.04.2016.

3                 We have heard the complainant and have gone through the case file carefully.

4                 Therefore, from the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence placed on file it is evident that the complainant has purchased iphone 5-S from OP-1 vide Bill No.15506 dated 31.03.2015 for a sum of Rs.39,000/- vide Bill Ex.C-1. However, the said phone became hot red and there was lot of fire coming out of the same and due to that reason it fell down from the hands of the complainant on the floor and got damaged. He deposited the handset with OP-3 vide report Ex.C-2. From the perusal of Ex.C-2 it emerges that OP-3 has reported that warranty was not updated and as per GSX record  the warranty was over on 27.01.2016 despite the fact that the complainant has purchased the mobile phone on 31.03.2015 vide Ex.C-1 from OP-1 and the warranty was for one year. Therefore, it seems that the OP-1 has sold the old mobile phone on 31.03.2015 despite the fact that the same has been activated in the month of Jan, 2015 in view of the report Ex.C-2. Therefore, we hold that there was deficiency in service on the part of OP-1. We direct the OP-1 to replace the handset of the complainant with new one of the same model or with upgraded model subject to return of old defective mobile phone. The complainant is also held entitled to compensation for harassment and mental agony as well as litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.10,000/-. The opposite party No.1 shall make the compliance of the order within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. The parties be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the records after due compliance.

Announced                                                                                                             (Subhash Goyal)

16.06.2016                                                                                                               President,

                                                                                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                                                                                        Redressal Forum, Gurgaon

(Jyoti Siwach)       

Member