DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (CENTRAL)
MAHARANA PARTAP BUS TERMINAL: 5th FLOOR.
KASHMERE GATE DELHI.
No. DF / Central/ 2015
ConsumerComplaint No | : | CC 129/2013 |
Date of Institution | : | |
| | | |
Ms. Mamta
D/o Sh. Vinay Kumar
R/o 412/3,
Nand Ram Mohalla,
Gali No. 1, Brahampuri, Delhi-110053
..........Complainant
Versus
1M/s Micromax Infromatics Ltd
Micromax House, 697, Udyog Vihar,
Phase-V, Udyog Vihar, Gurgoan -122016
Through its authorised signatory
2. M/s Sai Mobiles & Electronics
2, MCD Market, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005
..........Respondent/OP
BEFORE
SH. RAKESH KAPOOR, PRESIDENT
SH. S. N. SHUKLA, MEMBER
ORDER
Per Sh. RakeshKapoor, President
On 20.12.2012, the complainant had purchased one apple iPhone 3Gs bearing IMEI no. 012995001174819. He had purchased the iPhone from OP1 whereas OP2 is the manufacturer of the same. It is alleged by the complainant that the iphone stopped working properly on 5.8.2013 and he had brought the matter to the notice of Apple service center on 7.8.2013. He has alleged that the service center had returned the iphone to him on the plea that the warranty of this set was till 22.7.2013 as the iphone had been first activated (used) on 27.7.2012. The complainant has alleged that OP1 had sold him an old phone as a new one. He has, therefore, prayed for the refund of the amount as Rs. 19500/- along with compensation and cost of litigation.
OP1 has contested the complaint and has filed a written statement. It has claimed that the complaint is false and fabricated and is not maintainable. Para 3 of the preliminary objections of the written statement is relevant and is being reproduced as under:-
3.That the contents of Para 3 of the complaint regarding defect in the handset is matter of record and the complainant not filed any documentary evidence in support of her allegations. That the contents regarding the terms of the warranty the complainant intentionally not filed/ supplied the terms of the warranty alongwith the present complaint.
OP1 has contested the complaints on merits. It has not denied that it had sold away the aforesaid iphone to the complainant on 13.9.2012. It has denied that it had an old mobile set to the complainant and that its warranty had expired on 13.7.2013.
We have heard arguments advanced at the bar and have perused the record.
The complainant has placed on record an invoice dated 13.9.2012 for Rs. 19,500/- which shows that OP1 had sold away an iphone with IMEI no. 012995001174819 to the complainant. The complainant has also placed on record a document issued by the service center showing that the warranty of the iphone had expired. The warranty status shows that the iphone had been first activated on 29.7.2012 and its warranty had expired on 29.7.2003. it was for the Ops to explain as to how the warranty had expired on 29.7.2013 when the mobile set was purchased on 13.9.2012 It is therefore apparent that the complainant had been handed over an old set which was which was first activated on 29.7.2012. We, therefore, direct OP1 to pay to the complainant the cost of the set i.e. Rs. 19,500/ along with interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of filing of this complaint i.e. 19.9.2013 till payment. We also direct OP1 to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as compensation for pain and agony suffered by the complainant. We, further, direct OP1 to pay a sum of Rs. 5000 to the complainant as cost of litigation.
The OP1 shall pay this amount within a period of 30 days from the date of this order failing which they shall be liable to pay interest on the entire awarded amount @ 10% per annum. IF the OP1 fails to comply with this order, the complainant may approach this Forum for execution of the order under Section 25/27 of the Consumer Protection Act.
Copy of the order be made available to the parties as per rule. File be consigned to record room.
Announced on.....................
(S N SHUKLA) (RAKESH KAPOOR)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
