Punjab

Sangrur

CC/61/2017

Arun Mittal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Unicorn Infosolutions Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Vineet Duggal

15 May 2017

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                             

                                                                  Complaint no. 61                                                                                          

                                                                   Instituted on:   14.02.2017                                            

                                                                    Decided on:    15.05.2017

 

Arun Mittal Aged 34 years son of Sh. Rajinder Kumar resident of H.No.112, Ward No.7, Near Rame Wali Khui, Sangrur.        

                                                        …. Complainant

                                        Versus

 

1.     Unicorn Infosolutions Pvt. Limited First Floor, Mittal Building, Bhupindra RD, Near Columbia Asia Hospital, Patiala-147001 through its MD/Chairman.     

 

2.     Apple India Pvt. Limited, 19th Floor, Concorde Tower" C" UB City No.24, Vittal Mallya Road, Bangalore-560001, State -Karnataka through its MD/ Chairman.

 

3.     Paytm, Regional Offices, Banglore, 144/533 2nd Floor, 22nd Main, 150 Feet Ring Road, HSR Layout, Bangalor, Phone No.120-4770770-71 through its MD/Chairman.  

                                                ….Opposite parties.

 

 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT      :     Inperson                          

 

FOR OPP. PARTY NO.2          :      Shri  Sandip Goyal,  Advocate                         

 

FOR OPP. PARTIES NO.1&3  :      Exparte                         

 

 

 

 

Quorum

         

                    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

Sarita Garg, Member

Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

     

 

 

 

ORDER:  

 

Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

 

1.             Arun Mittal complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that he purchased Apple iphone 6S 16 GB ( Rose Gold) from OP no.3 for Rs.42749/- vide invoice dated 07.10.2016 under one year warranty.  The mobile phone in question all of sudden started to shut down and has to again restart the cell phone  one hanging issue , home button is  not working properly for which the complainant approached OP no. 1 who received the  set and issued job sheet dated 08.11.2016. The set was returned to the complainant after examining the same from the company but after two days the mobile set started giving same problems besides two new problems like overheating and more battery consumption. The complainant approached the OP no.1 to replace the mobile phone but OP no.1 flatly refused to replace the same. Thus alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainant has sought following reliefs:-

i)      OPs be directed to replace the cell phone in question with new one or in the alternative to refund the amount of Rs.42749/- along with interest @18% per annum from the date of purchase till realization, ii)        OPs be directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.25000/- as compensation   on account of mental agony, harassment and to pay Rs.25000/- on account of deficiency in service,

iii)   OPs be directed to pay Rs.6000/- as litigation expenses.

2.             Notices were issued to the OPs but despite service OPs no. 1 and 3 did not appear and as such OPs no.1&3 were proceeded exparte.

3.             In reply filed by the OP no.2, it is submitted that the complainant had submitted his iphone with OP no.1 on 08.11.2016 with regard to certain issues which were rectified and phone was returned to the complainant on 11.11.2016.  The complainant was satisfied with its performance and had acknowledged receipt of the same on the service report dated 08.11.2016.  It is denied that the set had problems like overheating and over consumption  of battery. The complainant has not followed the said procedure and blatantly claiming a replacement without his iphone being inspected. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP no.2.

4.             The complainant in his evidence has tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-7 and closed evidence. On the other hand, OP no.2 has tendered documents Ex.OP2/1 to Ex.OP2/2 and closed evidence.

5.             It is an admitted case of both the parties that the complainant on 08.11.2016  approached OP no.1 with complaint of  all of sudden shut down, restart, hanging and home button not working of his mobile set who kept the mobile set in question with it and issued job sheet dated 08.11.2016 which is Ex.C-6 on record.  The complainant's specific case is that after two days from receipt of repaired mobile set  it again started same problem with two other problems i.e.  overheating and more battery consumption for which he approached OP no.1 to replace the mobile set but they flatly refused to do so. In support of his version the complainant has produced on record report of an Engineer namely Hitesh Gupta alongwith his affidavit Ex.C-2 and Ex.C-3 wherein he opined that without opening the mobile, he found that this is manufacturing defect and the set is under warranty and it need to be replace. On the other hand, OP no.2 case is that on 08.11.2016 the complainant approached OP no.1 with problems of his iphone  which were rectified and iphone was returned to him on 11.11.2016. It is further stated that  complainant was satisfied with its performance  and had acknowledged the receipt of the same on the service report dated 08.11.2016. We thoroughly perused the file  and find that the OP no.2 has not produced on record any cogent and reliable  which could prove that the problems in the mobile set of the complainant are not due to manufacturing defect and same are repairable.  We feel that the complainant has fully proved his case by producing cogent evidence on record.

6.             For the reasons recorded above, we  allow the complaint and direct the OPs to replace the mobile set in question of the complainant with new one of the same model. We further direct the OPs to pay an amount of Rs.2000/- being consolidated amount of compensation.

7.             This order of ours shall be complied with within 30 days from the receipt of copy of the order. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course.                       

               Announced

                May 15, 2017

 

 

 

 ( Vinod Kumar Gulati)      (Sarita Garg)    (Sukhpal Singh Gill)                                                                                               

Member                      Member                      President

 

BBS/-