Haryana

Ambala

CC/444/2016

Anil Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s G.S. Duggal & sons - Opp.Party(s)

Rishi Dutt Sagar

27 Feb 2018

ORDER

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AMBALA

 

                                                          Complaint case no.        : 444 of 2016

                                                          Date of Institution         : 14.12.2016

                                                          Date of decision   :  27.02.2018

 

Anil Sharma  son of Shri Jamboo Parshad aged 45 years resident of near Aggarwal Complex, Barara, District Ambala.

……. Complainant.

Vs.

 

1.       M/s G.S.Duggal & Sons near Vijay Rattan Chowk Sadar Bazar Ambala  Cantt, District Ambala through  its sole prop. Kulwant Singh Duggal.

2.       Apple India Pvt. Ltd, 19^th Floor, Concorde Tower C,UB City No.24, Vital Mallya Road, Bangalore-560001, India

3.       Consumer Complaint Manager, Customer support, Apple India Pvt. Ltd. 19^th floor concorde Tower “C” UB City No.24, Vital Mallya Road, Banglore-560001 Karnataka.

 

 ….….Opposite Parties.

 

Before:        Sh. D.N. Arora, President.

                   Sh. Pushpender  Kumar, Member.            

                   Ms. Anamika Gupta, Member.

 

 

Present:       Sh. Navneet Singh Malhotra, counsel for the complainant.

                   Sh. Anil Kumar, counsel for the OP No.1.

Sh. Rajeev Sachdeva,  counsel for the OP No.2.

OP No. 3 ex parte v.o.d. 31.01.2017.

 

ORDER:

                   In nutshell, brief facts of the present complaint is that the complainant had purchased an Apple  5-S Mobile set (S.Grey) bearing IMEI/ MEID No.352084071662199 for a value of Rs. 23,500/- from OP No.1 on 09.01.2016 vide cash memo/retail bill invoice no.9665 with one year warranty. Three months the mobile function properly but thereafter the mobile become dysfunctional suddenly while was in use. Thereafter the mobile could not restart. The complainant approached OP No.1 regarding the problem of mobile handset, who suggested complainant to approach the local service station of OPs No. 2 & 3 at Galaxy Mall Ambala City. The  local service station failed to find out the defect of mobile hand set and suggested the complainant  to approach  the service station at Chandigarh. In the month of May-June 2016 the complainant approach several time to the service station Paramatrics at Chandigarh but they also failed to find out the problem and could not start the mobile handset. The service provider could not give any satisfactory reply sometime they said that the mobile is on lost mode and sometime they said the problem can be rectified by the manufacturer. The mobile handset is non functional till day. The complainant is a licensed Deed Writer and suffered financial loss also.  In this way, the complainant has suffered a financial loss and mental harassment. Hence, the present complaint.

2.                Registered notice issued to Op No.3 but none has turned up on his behalf and he was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 31.01.2017. Upon notice, OP No.1 appeared through counsel and tendered written statement and stated that OP No.1 sold the set as packed by the manufacturer and the complainant purchased the same after his fully satisfaction. The complainant never contacted with the OP No.1.

Upon notice, OP No.2 appeared through counsel and tendered written statement and stated that the complainant has visited OP No.2 regarding the device was inspected and it was found  that the iPhone in question was deprived  and was on lost mode  and the said iPhone was only eligible for an out-of-warranty service. OP No.2 informed  that the iPhone in question can only be repaired and delivered to perfection upon paying an amount of Rs.22000/- is true as the device has to repaired in out of warranty service. However, every warranty provisions withhold restrictions as on which category damages and devices are covered under the warranty. In the present matter the complainant has not provided a shred of evidence to support his averments. He also stated that the complainant was clearly explained that iPhone in question in question was damaged due to reasons contributable to the complainant himself. So, there are no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

3.               To prove his version complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure C-A with documents as annexure C-1 to C-4 and close his evidence. On the other hand, Counsel for the OP No.2 tendered affidavit as Annexure RW-2/A alongwith Annexure R-1/2 to R-2/2 and close his evidence. Evidence of the OP No.1 is closed by court order.

4.                We have heard learned counsels for both the parties and carefully gone through the case file.

5.                It is not disputed that the complainant had purchased the mobile set of Apple iPhone 5S IMEI No.352084071662199 vide Bill no.9665 dated 09.01.2016 for Rs. 23,500/- from OP No.1 (Annexure C-1) with one year warranty. The grievance of the complainant is that neither the Ops rectified the defect in the set nor replaced the same and even failed to refund the cost thereof despite the fact that it went out of order during warranty period.

On the other hand, OP No.1 come to this plea that he has sold the set as packed by the manufactuer and complainant purchased the same after his fully satisfaction . OP No. 2 has also come with the plea that Op No. 2 conducted sufficient check upon the said iPhone and found out that there is no manufacturing defect as such. It is pertinent to mention that the service will be provided only if the product suffers from any manufacturing defect, failure to prove the same does not meet the criteria  for availing any free service as the OP No.2 does not bear any burden on the same. No job sheet/card has been placed on record.

Perusal of the case file reveals that the complainant has alleged that the mobile in question is having manufacturing defect but there is nothing on the file to support this plea. He has also not disclosed as to which defect has occurred in the handset and as to which date she had visited the service center for getting the same repaired. It appears that the complainant might have fed up with the functioning and facilities available in the handset therefore under the grab of this compliant she wants to get the same replaced without mentioning/producing any evidence. It was open for the complainant to get the same examined through expert by moving an application under section 13(1)(C ) of the CP  Act but she failed to take any step to prove whether the mobile set having manufacturing defects or not.

6.                In view of above discussion, we are of the view that the complainant has miserably failed to prove her case and also failed to prove the  mobile set in question is having any manufacturing defect and thus the complaint is devoid of any merits.  Accordingly, the complaint is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copy of the order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File after due compliance be consigned to record room.  

Announced on : 27.02.2018

                    

 

 

 (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)       (ANAMIKA  GUPTA)          (D.N. ARORA)

Member                                 Member                                      President