Delhi

New Delhi

CC/14/2015

Gaurav Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. Future World Retail Pvt.Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

16 Mar 2020

ORDER

 

 

                                          CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI(DISTT. NEW DELHI),

‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN,

I.P.ESTATE, NEW DELHI-110002.

 

 Case No.CC./14/2015                                                                                                Dated:

 In the matter of:

Mr. Gaurav Singh

D-31, 3^rd Floor, Kalkaji,

New Delhi- 110019                                                                                                                                                                                                  ....COMPLAINANT

VERSUS

1.        Proprietor/ Manager

Future World Retail Pvt. Ltd.

G-54, Radial Road No. 2, Connaught Place

New Delhi – 110001

2.       Apple India Pvt. Ltd. 19^th Floor,

Concorde Tower “C”,

UB City, No. 24, Vittal Mallaya Road,

Bangalore – 560001                                                       ...OPPOSITE PARTIES

 

 

   ARUN KUMAR ARYA-PRESIDENT

 

O R D E R

 

1.        The complainant has filed the present complaint against the O.P. under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The facts as alleged in the complaint are that the complainant is working as a Law Clerk-cum Research  Assistant  in the Supreme Court of India.

2.        On 08/09/2014 the complainant approached OP-1 i.e. Future World Retail Pvt. Ltd regarding problems encountered in his Apple iPhone 4S 64 GB bearing serial no. DNPH17AMDTDV. Thereafter, the complainant was informed  by the service centre that the problems in his phone was not of such nature which could be repaired and therefore, keeping in line with your company’s policy, the said faulty phone would be replaced with a new one.

3.        Since, the said phone was out of warranty, the service center quoted a sum of Rs. 11,750/-  in order to replace the device.  The complainant paid an advance amount of Rs. 5,000/-  to facilitate the replacement process and was informed by OP-1 that the new device would be available in the next 2-3 days.

4.        On 11/09/2014, the complainant paid the balance amount of Rs. 6750/- and collected the new replaced phone bearing serial no. DNPHV4VGDTDV but after few days of using product 2, the complainant encountered  various problems like abrupt  vibrations, sound fluctuations in the ringtone and overheating at the time of charging. On 16/09/2014, just after 5 days of using the replaced device, it conked off abruptly and hasn’t been working since then.

5.        On 17/09/2014 the complainant informed by the executives of service centre that certain clips were missing from the device  and hence it had to be sent to your company’s screening center which would solve the issues. On 20/09/2014, the complainant lodged a complaint bearing no. 665410259 and waited for a response from the service centre. In this connection, the complainant contacted the executive of OP-2 several times but did not get satisfactory response. OP-2 also ensured that the complainant would receive a response in 24 hours with a solution from the company but did not get any response in the following days which was highly unprofessional from the company. Hence, this complaint.

6.        After notice, OP-2 filed written statement/ version denying all allegations. It is submitted by OP-2 that as per service report issued by OP-1 , there were dents and scratches  on the iPhone submitted by the complainant  to the OP-1 . There was also found tampering/ unauthorized modification in the iPhone  and certain parts like battery  clip and one clip near audio  jack were missing in the iPhone. It is further submitted that the manufacturer cannot be made liable without any manufacturing defect which has also not been proved  by the complainant.

7.        The OP-1 was proceeded ex-parte on 27/04/2015.

8.        The complainant and OP-1 filed evidence by way of affidavit. Oral arguments were also addressed.

9.     We have heard arguments advanced at the Bar and have perused the   record.

10.      Perusal of the file shows that the complainant paid the said amount for the replaced device but still remains unsatisfied due to inherent defects like abrupt  vibrations, sound fluctuations in the ringtone and overheating at the time of charging and conked off suddenly after defects. Due to the deficiency in service on the part of the OPs the complainant was compel to approach this Forum for redressal of his grievance Alleging deficiency on the part of both the OPs, we direct as under-

1)     OP-1  to pay  the cost of replacement of the Mobile phone Rs. 11,750/- to the complainant alongwith  9% simple interest from the date of filing i.e. 08/01/2015.

2)     Litigation cost of Rs. 5,000/- including mental agony and harassment.

            The Orders shall be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.

Copy of the order may be forwarded to the parties to the case free of cost as statutorily required. 

             Announced in open Forum on:  16/03/2020

             The orders be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in

     File be consigned to record room.

 

 

                                                (ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

                                                                      PRESIDENT

 

       (NIPUR CHANDNA)                                                                                     (HM VYAS)

             MEMBER                                                                                        MEMBER