Delhi

New Delhi

CC/1115/2013

Mohit - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. Apple India Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

15 Dec 2016

ORDER

 

 

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

(DISTT. NEW DELHI),

 ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P.ESTATE,

 NEW DELHI-110001

 

Case No.C.C./1115/2013                                     Dated:

In the matter of:

SHRI MOHIT

S/o Shri Bhupender Kumar

R/o 9936, Sarai Rohilla,

New Rohtak Road, Karol Bagh

New Delhi-110005

……..COMPLAINANT

 

VERSUS

 

1. M/s Apple India Pvt. Ltd.

19^th Floor, Concorde Tower ‘C’ U.B. City,No.24,

Vittal Malya Road,

Banglore-560001(Karnataka)

 

2. Prosound Trading Company,

6, A Block, Connaught Palace,

New Delhi-110001

 

       .... OPPOSITE PARTIES

MEMBER : NIPUR CHANDNA

ORDER

Complainant purchased I-Phone 4, 8 GB Black bearing IMEI No. 013662005721339 from OP No. 2 on 24.10.2013 for a sum of Rs. 23,000/-.

        It is alleged by the complainant that after purchasing the mobile phone when he inserted the sim, he found that the handset is not working, hence he immediately contacted OP No. 2 on 26.10.2013 who kept the handset for repairing and assured that the same will be delivered to him up to evening, and issued the receipt of the same on the face of the bill.

        It is further alleged by the complainant that when he visited in the evening to the shop of OP No. 2 to collect the alleged mobile, then OP No. 2 asked him to visit the service centre to collect the same. The complainant visited the service centre then the officials informed him that the alleged phone is dead, and the same will be replaced by OP No. 2. Complainant again visited OP No. 2 who assured the complainant to collect the handset after 4 days.

        It is alleged by the complainant that when he visited OP No. 2 again for the alleged handset, OP No. 2 give him a letter stating that handset has been deposited in service centre and asked him to contact them directly as retailer has no role. It is alleged by the complainant that up to 11.11.2013 he visited the service centre and OP-II as a shuttle cock, but nothing has been done by OP- II as well as service centre to resolve the issue. Hence this complaint.

        Notice of the complaint was sent to the OPs through Reg. AD post. Since none appeared on behalf of OP-II it was ordered to be proceeded with ex-parte.

Complaint has been contested by OP-I. Para No. 5 of the reply on merits is relevant for the disposal of this case and is reproduced as under:-

      “The contents of Para 6 are a matter of record and need no reply. It is submitted that the iPhone model in question, being an old model, was out of stock and Opposite Party No. 2 informed the complainant that it would take additional time to procure replacement from the distributor. As the complaint was not agreeable to the same, he was offered full refund of payment by the Opposite Party No. 2, which the complainant again declined. As the complainant insisted that he was also offered an upgrade to iPhone 4s subject to payment of 8000 INR, but the same was also declined by the complainant.”

          Both the parties have filed their evidence by way of affidavit. We have heard arguments advanced at the bar and have perused the record.

        Ld. Counsel for the OP has admitted that after examining the alleged handset, their service centre asked the complainant to get the same replaced from OP No. 2, it is contended by the counsel for OP No. 1 that as the alleged handset is of old model and was out of stock OP No. II requested the complainant that some additional time will be required to arrange the same and also offered the complainant full refund of payment made by him in alternative but the complainant declined the same and asked for the replacement of I phone and not for refund, OP- II also offered him upgraded I phone subject to addition payment of Rs. 8,000/- but the same was also declined by him. It is contended by the Ld. counsel for OP- I that OP-I is not in a position to offer anything beyond what is offered to the complainant and there is no deficiency in service on its part.

        We have carefully gone through the complaint and documents attached with it, as well as WS and the annexure attached to it, and came to the conclusion that the alleged phone is a defective one from the day one as evident from the service job sheet. If OP-II had replaced it well in time, then the complainant needed not had to suffer a lot. But the OP-II failed to provide the service in time to the complainant and failed to resolve the issue. This act of OP-II amounts to deficiency in service.

        We therefore hold OP-I liable for the act of its agent OP-II for not providing the service in time and by not replacing or refunding the cost of  alleged phone and direct OP-I as under:-

1. Refund to the complainant a  sum of Rs. 25,000/- as cost of mobile phone; and
2. Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards mental pain and agony suffered by him which will include cost of litigation.

The order shall be complied by the OP within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of the order. If the said amount is not paid by the OP within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order, the same shall be recovered by the complainant along with simple interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of this order till recovery of the said amount of Rs.30,000/-. This final order be sent to server (www.confonet.nic.in ). A copy each of this order each be sent to both parties free of cost by post.

Pronounced in open Forum on                     .

 

(S K SARVARIA)

 PRESIDENT

 

 

 

(H M VYAS)                                       (NIPUR CHANDANA)

                                                              MEMBER                                                   MEMBER