BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.

                                                               Complaint Case no. 38 of  2015      

                                                          Date of Institution:       16.2.2015

                                                          Date of Decision:     24.8.2016           

Amit Goyal aged 30 years, son of Shri Harbans Lal, resident of Gobind Nagar, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa.

                                                                                  ………Complainant.

                                      Versus

1. Shree Satyam Mobiles, Sadar Bazar, Sirsa, Tehsil and Distt. Sirsa through its prop.
2. Paramatrix Info Solution, Sector-34-A, SCO-112-113, Ground Floor, Chandigarh (Authorised service Centre-Apple).
3. Apple India Pvt. Ltd., 19^th Floor Concorde Tower C, UB City No. 24, Vittal Mallya Road Banglore  560001, India, through its Managing/Director.

                                                                                   ……… Opposite parties.

          Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

   Before:              SHRI S.B.LOHIA…………………PRESIDENT

                             SHRI RANBIR SINGH PANGHAL ……MEMBER.

Present:                     Shri Sanjay Mehta, Advocate for complainant.

                              Shri N.K,Daroliya, Advocate for Opposite party no. 1.

                             Shri  Sandeep Kamboj, Advocate for opposite party no. 2.

                             Opposite party no.3 exparte vide order dated 15.4.2015.

ORDER

                    In brief, case of complainant is that he had purchased one mobile of Apple i-phone-4 for the sum of Rs.22000/-from Op no.1 vide bill no. 62168 dt. 8.3.2014.  The IMEI no. of the phone is 013903001826122 and P No. is MD198HNIA and S/N-DX4M3YB8DPMW.   As alleged soon after the purchase of the phone it was defected.  While using it got hanged and again, its touch stops to work and sometime shows No Service (no rage) and many others.  The complainant told the defects to OP No. 1 and they removed the defects temporarily but failed to resolved the actual defect.  Complainant also approached to the Ops no. 2 and 3 by lodging the complaints and finally on 11.2.15 Op no. 2 replied that there is a manufacturing defect and the same cannot be removed.  As alleged due to manufacturing defect in the phone company also stopped its sale and now is selling Apple i-phone-4S in place of simple i-phone-4.  Hence this complaint.

2.                On notice, Ops no.1 and 2 appeared and contested the case by filing written replies, whereas OP no. 3 was proceeded exparte vide order dt. 15.4.2015.  OP no. 1 admitted the sale of the phone to the complainant but denied the remaining allegations.  It is also replied that OP No. 1,  sold the set in intact/packed condition without any kinds of tempering. Op No. 2 replied that the said mobile set has been received in his office on 11.2.15 with the complaint remarks as software problem.  The problem was removed by the OP No. 2.   Thereafter, the complainant never approached to  OP No. 2 with any complaint in the mobile set.

3.                By way of evidence, the complainant produced his affidavit Ex. C1, photo copy of bill Ex.C2 and  copy of receipt/token Ex. C3. Whereas, Op no. 1 filed his affidavit Ex. R1. OP No. 2 closed his evidence stating that written statement filed on his behalf be read as evidence. No separate evidence produced by op no. 2.

 4.               We have heard ld. counsels for parties and have gone through the record carefully.

 5.               Through the affidavit of complainant and service token Ex. C3, it is clearly established on record that mobile set had been deposited with OP No. 2 for removing the defect but there is no evidence on record on behalf of the any of the Ops that defect in question was removed to the entire satisfaction of the complainant. Op no. 1 admitted the sale of the phone to the complainant whereas the OP no. 2 admitted that phone was deposited with op no. 2 with the complaint of software problem but Op No. 2 failed to prove his version by way of any cogent and reliable evidence that the defect of the phone had been removed by op no. 2.  However, Op No. 3 failed to appear before the Forum and to file his version despite of service of notice.  

6.                As a result of above discussion we are of the considered view that complainant successfully proved the allegations of the complaint that Ops sold him defective i-phone-4 for the sum of Rs. 22,000/- .  As such under the provisions of Section 14 of the Consumer Protection Act, Ops are directed to replace the defective i-phone-4 of the complainant with a new one of similar description which shall be free from any defect or to refund the price of the phone i.e.Rs. 22,000/-, within a period of one month, from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Ops are jointly and severally liable to comply with   this order. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to record room.  

Announced in open Forum.                                       President,

Dated:24.8.2016                     Member.             District Consumer Disputes

                                                                             Redressal Forum, Sirsa.