Haryana

Gurgaon

CC/376/2014

Pradeep Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Tresor System - Opp.Party(s)

28 Jun 2016

ORDER

                                     DISTRICT   CONSUMER   DISPUTES   REDRESSAL FORUM,GURGAON-122001

                                                                                                       Consumer Complaint No: 376 of 2014                                                                                                                                                 Date of Institution: 17.10.2014                                                                                                                                                          Date of Decision:  28.06.2016

Pradeep Kumar aged 28 years s/o Shri Raghbir Singh, R/o Ward No.4, Ambedkar Colony, Baluda Road, Sohna, District Gurgaon.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                         ……Complainant.

                                                Versus

Tresor System (Imagine) Shop No.36-37, 2nd Floor, MGF Metropolitan Mall, Gurgaon through its authorized person/signatory.

 

Tresor Systems having its office at 206 to 208, 2nd Floor, South Point Mall, Sector 53, Golf Course Road, Gurgaon through its  Prop/Authorized Signatory.

 

 

Apple India Pvt. Ltd having its office at 19th Floor, Concorde Tower-C, UB City No.24, Vittal Mallya Road, Bangalore through its authorized person/signatory.

..Opposite parties

                                                                                               

Complaint under Sections 12 & 14 of Consumer Protection Act,1986                                                                  

 

BEFORE:     SHRI SUBHASH GOYAL, PRESIDENT

SMT JYOTI SIWACH, MEMBER

                   SH.SURENDER SINGH BALYAN, MEMBER.

 

Present:        Shri  Sunil Jogpal, Adv for the complainant.

                    Sh. Devender Singh, Adv for OP-1 & 2

                    OP-3 exparte.

 

ORDER       SUBHASH GOYAL, PRESIDENT.

The case of the complainant, in brief, is that he purchased mobile phone Apple iphone 4 in 8GB WHT Ref bearing IMEI No.01366800442565 for a sum of Rs.20,000/-from OP-1 vide Invoice No.GGN-1314-PRI dated 02.11.2013 though the IMEI mentioned in the invoice was 013661002019671 and SIM Tray number was -13265000186548 was totally different than the Apple Phone. However, in the month of Sept, 2014 the above said mobile phone suddenly switched off and then complainant approached OP-2 i.e. authorized service centre of the manufacturer OP-3 where he came to know that the above said phone has been activated in the month of June, 2013 and the said mobile phone has already been replaced by another customer which is clear from the different IMEI number. Thus, the OP-1 has played fraud and cheating upon him by selling old phone to the complainant whereas the complainant has already paid Rs.20,000/- for purchase of new phone. The complainant lodged a complaint to the customer care of OP-3 vide complaint No.664194779 and the official of the customer care told the complainant that OP-1 was not authorized by them to sell these discounted phones and they will submit the report for the same. The complainant requested the opposite parties either to replace the handset with new one or to refund its price but of no use and there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant prayed that the opposite parties be directed to refund Rs.20,000/- as cost of the phone with interest. He also sought compensation of Rs.50,000/- for harassment and mental agony.

2                 OP-1 & OP-2 in their joint written reply have alleged that the product was sold to the consumer  in sealed cover . It would be apparent from the perusal of the complaint that though the product was sold to the complainant in Nov, 2013 it was only in Sept, 2014 that the consumer alleges discovering some defect therein. Infact, when he had approached OP-1 & OP-2 alleging the defect in the phone in Sept, 2014 the complainant had admitted that after purchase the phone was found by him to be functioning optimally. This would mean that the product was functioning properly for nearly 11 months. Therefore, the complainant failed to indicate any deficiency in service on the part of OP-1 & OP-2.

3                 However, OP-3, the manufacturer of the phone, did not turn up before this Forum despite service and thus, it was proceeded exparte vide order dated 23.02.2015.

4                 The complainant in support of his contention has produced in evidence Retail Invoice dated 02.11.2013 vide which the complainant has purchased the mobile phone of OP-3 (Ex.C-1), email sent by Apple Care (Ex.C-2) and photocopy of packet  showing IMEI number etc (Ex.C-3) whereas the OP-1 & 2 in support of their contention have placed on file the affidavit  of Ms. Jyoti Singh.

5                 We have heard the parties and have perused the record available on file carefully.

6                 Therefore, after going through the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence placed on file it emerges that the complainant has purchased Apple iphone bearing IMEI No.01366800442565  manufactured by OP-3 from OP-1 for a sum of Rs.20,000/- vide invoice No.GGN-1314-PRI-7506 dated 02.11.2013 though in the invoice the IMEI Number was 013661002019671 and SIM Tray Number 013265000186548. In the month of Sept, 2014 the above said handset became defective and was taken to the authorized service centre i.e. OP-2 where he came to know that the above said phone has been activated in the month of June, 2013 and thus, it was clear that the OP-1 has supplied him old mobile phone by playing fraud and cheating with him and thus, OP-1 has adopted unfair trade practice.

7                 However, as per the contention of OP-1 & 2, absolutely a new phone in sealed package was sold to the complainant and thus, the allegations made by the complainant about selling of old phone are false and fabricated. The phone was functioning properly for about 11 months and the present complaint has been filed at the verge of expiry of warranty period with malafide intention.

8                 Therefore, from the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence placed on file it is evident that the  complainant has purchased Apple iphone manufactured by OP-3 from OP-1 for a sum of Rs.20,000/- vide invoice No.GGN-1314-PRI-7506 dated 02.11.2013 and the said mobile phone developed some problem  and the complainant approached the OP-2 to repair the handset but it was told by OP-2 to the complainant that the above said phone bearing IMEI No. 013661002019671 has been activated in the month of June, 2013 i.e. prior to the purchase by the complainant. It is pertinent to mention here that Apple Care has informed the complainant through email Ex.C-2 that mobile handset was bearing IMEI No. 013661002019671 which has been mentioned in the bill and the same was replaced by 01366800442565 on 28.06.2013. Therefore, when the Apple Care has informed the complainant about the change of IMEI number w.e.f. 28.06.2013 i.e. much prior to the purchase vide invoice Ex.C-1 wherein the old number has been mentioned as 013661002019671. Therefore, selling of handset with old IMEI number tantatmounts to deficiency in service on the part of OP-1. It seems that the allegations of the complainant mentioned in the compliant that the mobile in question has been activated in the month of June, 2013 and as such it seems that the OP-1 has sold old handset to the complainant

9                 Therefore,  we are inclined to hold that there was deficiency in service on the part of OP-1 and as such we direct the OP-1 to replace the handset with new one  or with upgraded model on deposit of old handset by the complainant along with accessories. The complainant is also entitled to compensation for harassment and mental agony as well as litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.5,000/-.The OP-1 shall make the compliance of the order within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. The parties be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the records after due compliance.

 

Announced                                                                                                  (Subhash Goyal)

28.06.2016                                                                                                       President,

                                                                                                        District Consumer Disputes

                                                                                                            Redressal Forum, Gurgaon

 

(Jyoti Siwach)        (Surender Singh Balyan)

Member                 Member