DISTRICT  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION,

                                          PATIALA.                                              

                                             Consumer Complaint No.122 Dt.12/04/2017                                                                                                                                                          Decided on:       11/09/2020

Pardeep Kumar Dhami son of Kuldeep Singh Resident of near Bus Stand, Village Bakhtari, P.O. Bhawanigarh, Tehsil Bhawanigarh, District  Sangrur.

…...Complainant

Versus

1.       New Mobile Hut, SCO 42, Leela Bhawan, Near Carana Bank, Patiala through  its Proprietor/ Partner.

2.       Apps Daily Solutions Private Limited, Near CL Tower, Near Nankiana Chowk, Sangrur through its Authorized Signatory.

3.       Unicorn Info Solution Private Limited, Ist Floor, Mittal Building, Bhupindra Road, Near Columbia Asia Hospital, Patiala through its authorized  signatory.

                                                                                               ….Opposite Parties 

                                      Complaint under Section 11 to 14 of the                                                                                                                                                Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  

QUORUM

                                    Sh. Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President                                                                                                                                                          Sh. Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member                        

ARGUED BY:

                                    Sh. Pulkit Bansal Adv. counsel for complainant.                                                                                                                                     OPs No.1 to 3 ex-parte.   

 ORDER

                                JASJIT  SINGH BHINDER, PRESIDENT

 1.                        Pardeep Kumar complainant  has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the Opposite Parties namely New Mobile Hut and Ors. (hereinafter referred to as the OPs).

2.                Brief facts of the case is that on 28/12/2015 complainant purchased one iphone 6S Rose Gold of 64 GB from OP No.1 for a sum of Rs.61,000/- vide bill bearing No.2646 dt.28/12/2015. The IMEI No. and Sr. No. of the said mobile are 353316079988799 and DNQQLIFGGRYF. OP No.1 gave one year guarantee/ warranty on the said mobile set. After the purchase, Complainant immediately got the phone insured from OP No.2 and paid the charges.  In the last week of January 2016 the mobile set of complainant was got damaged and the complainant immediately approached OP No.2 who replaced the damaged mobile with new one and issued discharged voucher dt.01/02/2016. In December 2016 the side button (silent mode button) of the mobile was giving problem and on 23/12/2016 the complainant immediately approached OP No.3 for the removal of the defect. On which OP No.3 told the complainant that the phone is out of warranty. Complainant approached OP No.1, who suggested the complainant to go with all the documents along with discharge voucher dt.01/02/2016 to OP No.3. On 24/12/2016 the complainant approached OP No.3 with all the documents and regarding the presence of the complainant entry at No.27 was marked by OP No.3. OP No.3 on seeing the documents told the complainant that there is a fault of OP No.2 i.e. when OP No.2 replaced the damaged mobile phone with new mobile, he did not swap the complainant’s last mobile phone, he did not swap the complainant’s last mobile IMEI No.353316079988799 to change the mobile phone. It is alleged that IMEI No.353314079977177 was of another person’s mobile phone and the billing date of that mobile phone was 11/11/2015 and the billing date of the complainant’s mobile phone is 28/12/2015.  

                   The complainant again approached OP No.2 and requested them to change the IMEI Number in their record and after changing the same replaced the defective mobile set, as the mobile set of the complainant is under the guarantee. On 26/12/2016 the Op No.2 filed a repeat repair form and returned the mobile set by mentioning the following lines in the Form:

Handset side button is not working. Customer has a replacement and now he has facing problem while side button is not working. Customer visit iphone care to repair it, but he says that there has a IMEI number mismatch issue in his system.

                   It is alleged that OP No.2 put off the matter on one pretext or the other and flatly refused to entertain the requests of the complainant and also flatly refused to replace the defective mobile set with new one which was under warranty as per bill. On 5/1/2017 the complainant approached OP No.3 to get the proof for filing the case whether there is any defect in mismatching of IMEI Number of mobile phone or not. Then OP No.3 handed over the delivery report by mentioning that on checking we found the iphone which customer brought is not the active serial number, means customer brought different device with different serial number which is not replaced. The same caused mental agony and harassment to the complainant. As such there is deficiency in service and negligence and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs.

                   It is alleged that complainant filed a complaint No.17 dt.11/01/2017 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum  at Sangrur against the OPs but the same was dismissed as withdrawn

                    With this background of facts, the complainant has filed the present complaint with the prayer for direction to the OPs to change the wrong IMEI Number with the original IMEI Number and further to replace the defective mobile set with new one or to refund the purchase price of mobile set i.e. Rs.61,000/- alongwith interest @ 18 % per annum from the date of  purchase, to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation to the complainant on account of mental agony, tension, harassment, inconvenience and humiliation suffered by the complainant and to pay Rs.11000/- as litigation expenses.    

3.                Upon notice, none has appeared on behalf of OPs No.1 to  3.  Consequently OPs were proceeded against ex-parte.    

4.                In support of the complaint, Ld. Counsel for the complainant tendered in evidence Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant  alongwith documents Ex.C-1 copy of bill dt.28/12/2015, Ex.C-2 copy of card of Apps daily, Ex.C-3 copy of discharge voucher, Ex.C-4 to   Ex.C-6 repeat repair form and other documents, Ex.C-7 & Ex.C-8 copy of order dt.6/3/2017 and statement dt.06/03/2017 and ld. counsel closed the evidence.

5.                We have heard the ld. Counsel for the complainant and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.

6.                In this case ld. Counsel for the complainant has tendered in evidence affidavit of the complainant Ex.CA who has deposed as per the complaint. Ex.C-1 is the receipt/ retail invoice of Rs.61,000/- vide which the mobile phone was purchased. Ex.C-3 is the Insurance cover of Apps daily solution. So it is clear that it was insured with OP No.2. OP No.2 despite service has not appeared to rebut the case of the complainant. As per the complaint the mobile phone was insured with OP No.2, so the complaint stands allowed. OP No.2 is directed to replace the button of the mobile phone which is not working within 45 days and also to pay Rs.500/- as costs of the complaint to the complainant. Compliance of the order be made by OP No.2 within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.   

ANNOUNCED*

Dated: 11/09/2020                      

                                       Vinod Kumar Gulati               Jasjit Singh Bhinder                                                                                                                                              Member                          President