Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 287.
Instituted on : 12.06.2019.
Decided on : 04.09.2019.
Amit Hooda age 36 years, s/o Sh. Ram Chander R/o H.No.1201, Sector-3, Rothak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Reliance Retail Limited Reliance Digital, Property No.1015A & 1018, Ward No. 22, Minar Party Hall, Near Man Sarover Park, Delhi Road, Rohtak through its Proprietor.
- iQor Global Services India Pvt. Ltd. Shop no.106., 1st Floor Sheetal Life Style Mall, D-Park, Rohtak through its Manager.
- Apple India Private Limited, 19th Floor, Concorde Tower-C UB City No.24, Vittal Mallya Road, Banghlore-560001.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
DR. RENU CHAUDHARY, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.Ajay Gandhi, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. Kamal Luthra Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Sh.Kunal Juneja Advocate for opposite party No.3.
Opposite party No. 2 already exparte.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant with the averments that he had purchased a mobile phone model-iphone-7 of 32 GB capacity bearing IMEI No.353833081793272 on dated 06.05.2018 from the opposite party no.1 vide store no.3790 POS No.111 for a sum of Rs.47490/-. That after some months of purchase of said mobile, it has started giving problems as the same was not vibrating properly. So the complainant approached to respondent no.2 and same was got repaired. But even after that, the problem was not solved. Due to which, the complainant could not properly use the phone. Now the officials of opposite party No.2 have flatly refused to repair/replace the mobile phone of complainant whereas the said mobile is within warranty period and respondents are legally bound to repair/replace the same. That the act of opposite parties is illegal and there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. As such, it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to replace the mobile phone or to refund the price of the same alongwith compensation of Rs. 50,000/- on account of deficiency in service and Rs.11000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant as explained in relief clause.
2. Notice of the present complaint was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party No.1 in its reply has submitted that opposite party no.1 was not authorized to provide any service in the said product. Being separate legal entity, opposite party No.1 has no role in resolving the dispute of the complainant. There is no cause of action against the opposite party no.1. It is prayed that complaint may kindly be dismissed with costs. Opposite party No.3 in its reply has submitted that in fact the only time the complainant visited the OP No.2 was 30.05.2019, for which the service report was issued. There is no other evidence to show that complainant has visited the OP no.2 for any alleged issue with his device. The complainant never visited the OP No.2 besides 30.05.2019, hence all the claims of the complainant that he repeatedly visited the OP No. 2 are denied as false. There is no service reports or emails produced by the complainant to show that his IPhone was inspected by OP No.2 or any dates besides 30.05.2019. That the service/replacement was refused by OP No.2 as it was found to be tampered. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied. Opposite party No.3 prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs. However, opposite party No.2 failed to appear before the Forum, despite service. Hence, opposite party was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 08.07.2019 of this Forum.
3. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C4 and has closed his evidence on dated 26.07.2019. Ld. counsel for the opposite party No.1 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R1/1 to Ex.R1/3 and closed his evidence on 27.08.2019. Ld. counsel for the opposite party No.3 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW3/A, documents Ex.R3/1 to Ex.R3/3 and closed his evidence on 27.08.2019.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that as per invoice Ex.C4, complainant had purchased the mobile set on 15.06.2018 and as per copy of job sheet Ex.C1, there was problem of ringer button issue and the mobile was within warranty period. But the problem could not be removed by the opposite parties within warranty period despite repeated requests of the complainant, which proves deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. As such, opposite party i.e. manufacturer is liable to refund the price of mobile set.
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, complaint is allowed and we hereby direct the opposite party No.3 i.e. manufacturer to refund the price of mobile set i.e. Rs.47490/-(Rupees forty seven thousand four hundred and ninety only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 12.06.2019 till its realization and also to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision. However, complainant is directed to hand over the mobile in question to the opposite parties at the time of receiving of awarded amount.
7. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
04.09.2019.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Ved Pal Hooda, Member.
……………………………….
Renu Chaudhary, Member.
