Punjab

Faridkot

CC/15/8

Harpreet Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Royal Telecom - Opp.Party(s)

Gurpreet Singh Chauhan

23 Jun 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

                                                                Complaint No. :      08

   Date of Institution : 16.01.2015

                                                                             Date of Decision :    23.06.2015

 

 

Harpreet Singh   aged about 26 years  s/o  Sh Gurbhej Singh r/o Village Dhilwan Khurd, Tehsil and District Faridkot.                                              

...Complainant

Versus

1. Royal Telecom, Shop No. 75-78, Opp. Jagbani Office, Baba Farid Market, Near Kotwali, Faridkot throughits Proprietor.

2. Paramatrix Info Solutions Pvt Ltd (Authorized Service Provider of Apple), SCO No.112-113, G F, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh through its Proprietor.

3. M/s Apple India Pvt Ltd 19^th Floor Concorde Tower C, UB City, No. 24, Vital Malya Road, Bangoore-560001 (Karnataka) through its MD.

...Opposite Parties

 

    Complaint under Section 12 of the

    Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum: Sh Ajit Aggarwal, President

               Sh Purshottam Singla,  Member

               Smt Parampal Kaur, Member.

 

Present: Sh G S Chauhan, Ld Counsel for Complainant,

             Sh Ashok Monga, Ld Counsel for OP-1,

             Sh G S Bhullar, Ld Counsel for OP-3,

             OP-2 Exparte.

 

 

ORDER

(Ajit Aggarwal, President)

 

                                            Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties for deficiency in service and seeking directions to Ops to replace the defective mobile handset I-Phone 4 or refund its cost worth Rs 22,900/- with interest and to pay Rs 50,000/- as compensation on account of harassment and mental agony besides litigation expenses of Rs.5,500/-.

2.                               Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that purchased a mobile handset I Phone Model 4 of Apple Trade Mark having IMEI No. 13905002829203 from OP-1 vide bill no. 5447 dt 28.01.2014 for Rs 22,900/- under warranty cover till 29.01.2015; the said handset was not of standard quality as per assurance and guarantee of one year. In September 2014, it started leaving network signal  problem and complainant had to select the network manually within a short span of an hour and it also went in hang mode and got switched on or off on its own and also giving problem of leaving voice signals after connecting the call; that complainant consulted OP-1/dealer to remove defects, who advised him to visit OP-2/Authorized Service Centre for Apple Mobiles for repair of his handset and on 26.12.2014, brother in law of complainant visited OP-2 for removal of defects in handset and OP-2 took the said mobile in its possession for diagnose and issued the service report bearing no. 9754; that on 7.01.2015, OP-2 contacted complainant to receive his handset and brother in law of complainant visited OP-2 to receive the said handset and OP-2 told him that said handset is OK and then, he received the same and when complainant used mobile handset after diagnose by OP-2, it again started giving trouble; that complainant had already deposited his mobile with OP-2 two times for removal of defects, but OPs failed to rectify the same; that complainant has made many requests to OPs to repair the said mobile handset, but that too bore no fruit. All this amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Complainant has prayed for seeking directions to OPs to replace the defective mobile or to refund its cost worth Rs 22,900/- and also to pay compensation & litigation expenses as mentioned in complaint. Hence, the  instant complaint.

3.                                              The counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 19.01.2015 complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties.

4.                                     Despite service of notice to the opposite party No. 2 through registered post no one appeared on their behalf, so the opposite party No. 2 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 2.03.2015.

5.                                    On receipt of the notice, the opposite party No. 1 filed written statement taking preliminary objections that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP-1 and complaint is not maintainable against them and as per terms and conditions of the sale, warranty and service if any, is to be provided by authorized service centre/OP-2 therefore, complaint against OP-1 is not maintainable and complaint being without any cause of action, is liable to be dismissed against answering OP-1. However, on merits, OP-1 has denied all the allegations leveled by complainant being incorrect and wrong and reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP-1.

6.                                OP-3 also filed written statement taking objections that contentions and submissions taken and allegations leveled by complainant are incorrect and misleading and asserted that when complainant approached OP-2 on 26.12.2014 with problems in his I Phone regarding network, hanging and speaker, OP-2 diagnosed the same and after being unable to find any such problem in said phone, returned the same to the complainant with outward service report stating, “Restore and reset and check by know good sim card. Network issue not found and volume speaker and hanging issue also not found. Device working fine” and based on this report, request for replacement is rightfully denied; that there is no cause of action and proof of manufacturing defect and therefore, complaint deserves to be dismissed in limine; that complainant has filed his complaint on concocted facts only to gain undue advantage from OPs ; that no expert evidence is adduced by complainant to prove manufacturing defect in the mobile set and there is no defect in the said mobile set. However, on merits, ld counsel for OPs denied all the allegations  leveled by complainant being incorrect and wrong and reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OP and asserted that complainant claims to have some issue with the alleged I Phone in September, 2014 i.e after eight months of usage and visited the OP-2 only during the last month of the warranty period; that it shows the intention of complainant that he wants to extract undue benefits of warranty provision. So, there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of answering opposite parties. All the allegations and the allegation with regard to relief sought too were refuted with a prayer that complaint deserves to be dismissed with costs.

7.                                    All the parties wanted to lead evidence to prove their respective pleadings and proper opportunity was given to them. The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to Ex C-3 and then, closed the same.

8.                                   In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the opposite party No. 1 tendered in evidence affidavit of Arun Kumar and closed the same on behalf of OP-1. OP-3 tendered in evidence affidavit of Ashish Bali Ex OP-3/1 and documents Ex OP-3/2 to Ex OP-3/3 and also closed the evidence.

9.                                     We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have very carefully gone through the affidavits and documents on the file.

10.                                  Ld Counsel for complainant has strenuously argued that complainant purchased the mobile hand set I Phone Model 4 of Apple Company on 28.01.2014 from OP-1 and paid Rs 22,900/- as sale price. OP-1 issued bill and assured that the hand set has warranty against any manufacturing defect for one year, but handset was not of standard quality and it started giving trouble in the month of September 2014. Complainant visited OP-1, who advised him to approach OP-2, which is the authorized Service Centre of the Company and on 26.12.2014, complainant approached OP-2 and OP-2 took the said mobile handset for diagnose and repair. On 7.01.2015, OP-2 returned the mobile handset in question to complainant and said that said mobile handset is okay and has no defect but the handset again started giving problem. He again approached OP-2, but OP-2 failed to rectify the defect in the handset. So, there is clear cut deficiency in service on the part of OPs and  prayed for replacement of the handset.

11                                        To controvert the submission of complainant, ld counsel for OP-1 argued that there is no deficiency in service on his part as he is only a retail seller and the contract of warranty is directly between complainant and  the Company and he has nothing to do with the terms of warranty. It is only the Company who is responsible for repair of handset during the warranty period and the present complaint may be dismissed against him with costs.

12                                   Ld Counsel for OP-3 argued that the complainant has leveled false allegations against OPs, though there is no defect in the handset, complainant purchased the handset on 28.01.2014 and he used the handset for about one year and have not got any problem in the mobile handset. Now, he is complaining about the handset in the last month of the warranty only to get the handset replaced as per warranty terms and to gain the undue advantage. The complainant approached OP-2, which is authorized Service Centre of the Op-3 only on 26.12.2014 i.e in the last month of warranty period and complained regarding hanging problem, network issue and speaker problem of said mobile handset.OP-2 diagnosed the same and returned the same to the complainant with Service Report, which states “Restore and reset and check by know good sim card. Network issue not found and volume speaker and hanging issue also not found. Device working fine”, which clearly reveals that handset is okay and diagnosed no problem in the handset.

13                                   In the light of above discussion, we come to the conclusion that complainant is consumer of OPs and he is entitled to avail free services of OPs for repairing the handset in question within period of warranty. Therefore, complaint in hand is hereby partly allowed with direction to OP-3 to repair the handset of complainant to his satisfaction within 15 days of the receipt of the handset from complainant. The complainant is directed to deposit the said handset with OP-3 within 15 days of the receipt of the copy of the order. Compliance be made, failing which complainant shall be entitled to initiate proceedings under section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. However, in peculiar circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.

Announced in open Forum:

Dated: 23.06.2015

 

Member                              Member                       President

(Purshottam Singla)          (Parampal Kaur)         ( Ajit Aggarwal)