Punjab

StateCommission

A/26/2018

Unicorn Infosolutions Pvt. Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Lakhbir Singh Bisla - Opp.Party(s)

Gaurav Verma

06 Apr 2018

ORDER

                                                                             2^Nd ADDITIONAL BENCH

STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.

First Appeal No.26 of 2018

                                                          Date of Institution:  16.01.2018

                                                          Order Reserved on : 27.03.2018

                                                         Date of Decision:    06.04.2018

 

1.      Unicorn Infosolutions Pvt Ltd., First Floor, Mittal Building, Bhupinder Road, Patiala, Authorized apple I phone Service centre.

2.      Fides Distribution Private Lt, Banga C/O Proconnect  Supply Chain Solutions Ltd.SY NO 102/1, Adakarmarnhali Village, Dasanpura Hobli Makali Post City, Banagalore, Karnataka.

                                                         Appellants/Opposite Parties No.1

Versus

Lakhbir Singh Bisla, S/o Narata Singh, Resident of Village Assarpur, Tehsil Samana, District Patiala.

                                                                       Respondent/complainant  

First Appeal against order dated 13.12.2017 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,   Patiala.

Quorum:-

          ShriGurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member.

          Shri Rajinder Kumar Goyal, Member

Present:-

          For the appellants        :         Sh.Gaurav Verma, Advocate

          For the respondent      :         Sh.Munish Gupta, Advocate

         

RAJINDER KUMAR GOYAL MEMBER :-

ORDER

                   The appellants/opposite parties No.1&2 (hereinafter referred to as OPs) have filed the present appeal against the order dated  13.12.2017 passed in Consumer Complaint No.289 of 26.07.2016 by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Patiala (herein referred as District Forum) vide which the complaint filed by the complainant was accepted with a direction to the Ops to refund the amount of Rs.49,999/- to the complainant. Further directed to pay Rs.5000/- as compensation for harassment undergone by the complainant along with Rs.4000/- as litigation expenses.

2.                Complaint was filed by the respondent/complainant under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against the OPs on the averments that the complainant purchased one Apple Mobile phone i.e. I-phone 6S (16GB) through online service for a sum of Rs.49,999/- vide invoice No.S068B7/15-16/48766 on 02.12.2015 bearing IMEI No.353317072188106 through OP No.2 and paid cash amount on delivery. After about three months the mobile phone got switched OFF its own and did not switch ON. The complainant approached service center on 11.03.2016 and after checking the mobile phone OP No.1/appellant No.1 replaced the mobile phone with a new one on 14.03.2016 vide No.KGB:DNER4K9QGRY5. Again on 02.05.2016 the same problem cropped up in the replaced mobile phone and it again switched OFF its own. Complainant approached OP No.1 on 03.05.2016 and handed over the mobile phone to OP No.1 vide job No.PTA:39030 and after checking the same OP No.1 found the same problem and told the complainant that they would replace the handset within two /three days. Thereafter, complainant visited the service center time and again but the OP failed to replace the mobile phone which amounted to deficiency in service on the part of Ops. The complainant got served a legal notice to the Ops but to no use. Hence, a complaint was filed in the District Forum for directions to the Ops as below:-

1. To pay Rs.49,999/- cost of mobile phone.
2. Rs.20,000/- as damages and compensation
3. Rs.50,000/- as harassment and mental agony.
4. Rs.21,000/- cost of complaint.

3.                Upon notice, OP No.1 failed to appear despite service whereas OP No.2 refused to receive the notice. As such, OP No.1&2 were proceeded ex-parte.

4.                Before the District Forum the complainant led the respective evidence.

5.                In support of the complaint, the counsel for the complainant has tendered in evidence Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant along with documents Ex.C-1 to C-6 and closed the evidence of the complainant.   

6.                After going through the allegations as alleged in the complaint, and documents brought on record, the complaint filed by the complainant was allowed as referred above.

7.                Aggrieved with the order passed by the learned District Forum the appellants/opposite party Nos.1&2 have filed the present appeal.

8.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have persued the record carefully.

9.                It was argued by the counsel for the appellants/Ops No.1&2 that appellant No.1 is only a service provider and appellant No.2 is merely a distributor of Apple India Limited. The complainant has failed to implead Apple India Limited a party. The complainant purchased the product through online on 02.05.2015. The complainant submitted the device on 03.05.2016 and the service centre found liquid damage in the device. The liquid damage is not covered under warranty services as laid down by Apple India Pvt. Limited. The same was intimated to the complainant but he refused to accept the device back.  The complainant was informed number of times to either get the phone repaired with costs or take it back. The counsel finally prayed to set aside the ex-parte order dated 13.12.2017 passed by the District Forum Patiala.

10.              The counsel for the complainant/respondent argued that initially after three months of the purchase of mobile hand set online, it went switched OFF itself and same was not being able to switch ON. The complainant visited service center of appellant No.1 on 11.03.2016 and after checking the mobile phone on their computer the same was replaced with a new phone on 14.03.2016. Again the same problem was faced on 02.05.2016 and the said phone again switched OFF. The complainant visited the service centre on 3.05.2016 and handed over the mobile phone. The officials of the Op No.1/appellant No.1 found the problem to be same and assured to replace the handset within two-three days. Again the complainant visited the service centre many times but the appellant did not replace the phone. Therefore, the appellants are deficient in service. The counsel finally prayed to dismiss the appeal and to uphold the decision of District Forum..

11.              From the above discussion it is evident that the appellant/Ops were sent notice to appear in the District Forum on 06.10.2016, but in spite the service OP No.1 did not appear. Notice sent to OP No.2  was received back with refusal to accept the notice. Therefore, Op No.2 was also proceeded ex-parte before the District Forum. During arguments the counsel for appellants/Ops No.1&2 was asked to explain any reason for non-appearance in District Forum taken in the grounds of appeal. The counsel could not explain any reason. Again the counsel was asked to explain the mode of conveying delivery report explaining liquid damage to the device to the complainant. Again the counsel could not produce any evidence to that. The relationship between the appellants/Ops and Apple India Limited is on principal to principal basis. Therefore, OP No.1&2 cannot avoid their responsibility even though Apple India Pvt. Ltd., was not impleaded as a party. Neither the Ops appellants informed the complainant about the defects/estimate for repair being out of warranty nor returned the device since 03.05.2016. Therefore, Ops are jointly and severally responsible to compensate the complainant for deficiency in service.

12.              Sequel to the above we find no merit in the appeal, the same is hereby dismissed and the order of the District Forum is upheld. 

13.              The appellants had deposited an amount of Rs.25000/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted to the concerned District Forum, after the expiry of 90 days, from the dispatch of the certified copy of the order to the parties; subject to stay, if any, by the higher Fora/Court for release of the above amount and the District Forum may pass the appropriate order in this regard.

14.              The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of the Court cases.

 

(Gurcharan Singh Saran)

                                                                                    PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

 

                                                                                   

            April   06, 2018                                              (Rajinder Kumar Goyal)

            PK/-                                                                                 MEMBER