DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, NORTH-WEST
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
CSC-BLOCK-C, POCKET-C, SHALIMAR BAGH, DELHI-110088.
CC No: 610/2016
D.No._______________________ Dated: __________________
IN THE MATTER OF:
SANDEEP MANN S/o SH. RANBIR,
R/o 2036, NEAR CHANDAN MARKET,
NARELA ROAD, VILLAGE-ALIPUR,
DELHI-110036. … COMPLAINANT
Versus
1. VIJAY SALES,
(THROUGH ITS MANAGER),
HD-2, PITAM PURA, DELHI-110034.
2. B2X SERVICE SOLUTIONS INDIA PVT. LTD.,
(SERVICE CENTER), (THROUGH ITS MANAGER),
SHOP No. 207 A, 2nd FLOOR, PLOT D1-2-3,
NDM-2, BLOCK-D, NETAJI SUBHASH PLACE,
DELHI-110034.
3. APPLE INDIA PVT. LTD., (MANUFACTURER),
(THROUGH ITS MANAGER),
19th FLOOR, CONCOEDE TOWER, C-UB CITY,
No-24, VITTAL MALLYA ROAD,
BANGALORE. … OPPOSITE PARTY(IES)
CORAM: SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT
SH. BARIQ AHMED, MEMBER
MS. USHA KHANNA, MEMBER
Date of Institution: 28.06.2016
Date of decision: 17.05.2019
MS. USHA KHANNA, MEMBER
ORDER
1. The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OPs
CC No. 610/2016 Page 1 of 7
under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 thereby alleging that the complainant purchased an iPhone mobile handset model iPhone 6, MM-TD, grey for a sum of Rs.43,200/- vide tax invoice no. V.No.301-DPR06-16SIF3 dated 03.06.2016 from OP-1. After about 13 days of purchasing the mobile handset, the said mobile handset started creating many problems like hanging problem, display is blank and the mobile handset was completely dead and the complainant gave the said mobile handset to OP-2 for rectifying the mobile handset and OP-2 asked the complainant to come after two days and the complainant visited OP-2 after two days but the said mobile handset was not rectified and OP-2 again asked the complainant to come after two days and the complainant again visited OP-2 after two days but the said mobile handset was not rectified by OP-2 and again OP-2 asked the complainant to come after two days and again the complainant visited OP-2 and this time also the said mobile handset was not rectified by OP-2 and the complainant approached/visited to OP-2 several times but the said mobile handset was not rectified by OP-2. The complainant further alleged that the complainant is very disturbed of this type of attitude of OP-2 and the said mobile handset because it has many defects and due to this the complainant is in loss and the complainant cannot talk to anyone with the said mobile handset
CC No. 610/2016 Page 2 of 7
and his work is suffering very much and after giving it for rectification to OP-2. The complainant accordingly alleged that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs.
2. On these allegations the complainant has filed the complaint praying for direction to the OPs to refund the amount of the said mobile handset i.e. Rs.43,200/- because the said mobile handset has many defects and it has not been rectified permanently as yet by the OPs as well as compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for causing him mental agony and harassment and has also sought litigation expenses of Rs.11,000/-.
3. All OPs have been contesting the case and have filed their separate reply/written statement. OP-1 in its reply submitted that the complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. OP-1 further submitted that OP-1 has not received any complaint from the complainant and OP-1 is only a dealer.
4. OP-2 in its written statement submitted that the complainant was told that they will revert to him within 3-4 working days from the submission of the mobile handset and also told the complainant that mobile handset need to be checked from screening centre and OP-2 called the complainant on 17.06.2016 at 02:06 p.m. to inform him that device has been sent to screening centre for check-up but contact no. was not reachable but on the next day i.e. 18.06.2016
CC No. 610/2016 Page 3 of 7
at 12:06 p.m., OP-2 again called up to the complainant and informed him that device has been rejected by screening centre for the repair due to mismatch of internal MLB no. (main logic board) and display panel no. so there was an unauthorized modification and OP-2 also requested the complainant to visit the service centre for more clarification and collection of device. OP-2 further submitted that the complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.
5. OP-3 submitted in its objections/version that the complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. OP-3 further submitted that during the Visual Mechanical Inspection (VMI) on the complainant’s said mobile handset as conducted by OP-2, it was found that the ‘SIM tray card reader soldering and MLB no. mismatch and display no. mismatch and this clearly shows that the iPhone was tampered with and had it not been tampered with then device would have been under warrantee and could be handled as per the terms & conditions of the warrantee and OP-2 then informed the complainant that the iPhone was out of warrantee and offered an out of warrantee repair. OP-3 further submitted that there was no deficiency in service on the part of OP-3 and the complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.
6. The complainant filed separate rejoinders and denied the contentions of OPs.
CC No. 610/2016 Page 4 of 7
7. In order to prove his case, the complainant filed his affidavit in evidence and also filed written arguments. The complainant also placed on record copy of tax invoice no. V.No.301-DPR06- 16SIF3 dated 03.06.2016 for purchase of mobile handset for a total value of Rs.43,200/- issued by OP-1 and copy of service report vide job no. DPP160616210525 dated 16.06.216 issued by OP-2.
8. On the other hand, Sh. Sonu Kumar Singh, Authorized Representative of OP-1, Sh. Prakash Chand Kishor, Manager of OP-2 and Sh. Priyesh Poovanna, Country Legal Counsel for OP-3 filed their separate affidavits in evidence. OP-3 also filed copy of Apple One (1) Year Limited warrantee and copy of service report dated 16.06.2016. OPs have also filed written arguments.
9. This forum has considered the case of the complainant in the light of evidence of both the parties and documents placed on record by the complainant. The case of the complainant has remained consistent and undoubted. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the case of the complainant. It is hard to believe that the complainant will cause damage to his mobile handset by using in a faulty manner or will temper the mobile handset in any manner. Moreover, it is hard to believe that the complainant will lodge a false complaint against the newly purchased handset immediately after purchase. OPs have failed to rectify the problem in the mobile
CC No. 610/2016 Page 5 of 7
handset and as such OP-2 & OP-3 have indulged in unfair trade practice and there is deficiency in service on the part of OP-2 & OP-3 and it appears that there has been a manufacturing and inherent defect in the mobile handset. Accordingly, OP-2 & OP-3 are held guilty of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.
10. Accordingly, OP-2 & OP-3 jointly or severally are directed as under:
i) To refund to the complainant an amount of Rs.43,200/- being the price of mobile handset on return all the accessories and bill/invoice by the complainant.
ii) To pay an amount of Rs.15,000/- as compensation towards mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant.
iii) To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.8,000/- towards cost of litigation.
11. The above amount shall be paid by the OP-2 & OP-3 jointly or severally to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receiving copy of this order failing which OP-2 & OP-3 shall be liable to pay interest on the entire awarded amount @ 10% per annum from the date of receiving copy of this order till the date of payment. If the OP-2 & OP-3 fail to comply with the order within 30 days from the date of receiving copy of this order, the complainant may approach this Forum u/s 25 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
CC No. 610/2016 Page 6 of 7
12. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on this 17th day of May, 2019.
BARIQ AHMED USHA KHANNA M.K. GUPTA
(MEMBER) (MEMBER) (PRESIDENT)
CC No. 610/2016 Page 7 of 7
UPLOADED BY :-SATYENDRA JEET
