BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.98 of 2019
Date of Instt. 01.04.2019
Date of Decision: 08.01.2024
Harkamal Singh aged 24 years s/o Late Harjinder Singh R/o V.P.O. Jaja, Tehsil Dasuya, District Hoshiarpur.
..........Complainant
Versus
1. Apple Company, having its Office No.24, 19th Floor, Concord Tower C, Vittal Mallya Road, Bangalore PIN Code-560001 Head Office of Apple Company.
2. B2X Services Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. Business Bay Ground Floor, 182-R Model Town, Jalandhar, Punjab-144003 Authorized Service Provider.
….….. Opposite Parties
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)
Smt. Jyotsna (Member) Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon (Member)
Present: Sh. Jagjit Singh, Adv. Counsel for Complainant.
Sh. Bharat Mahajan, Adv. Counsel for OP No.1.
Sh. Vikas Arora, Adv. Counsel for OP No.2.
Order
Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)
1. The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein it is alleged that the brother of the complainant purchased a mobile handset by Apple inc. the model of the mobile handset is iPhone X, variant Iphone X, GSM, 64 GB, Silver, having serial number GONVPHIQJCLJ from OP and the OP gifted the mobile phone to the complainant, since that very day the mobile handset is being used by the complainant himself personally. The brother of the complainant entered into an agreement with parent company. The mobile handset was encountered with some problems prima facie but the complainant ignored the same being minor issues, which got resolved when the device was restarted by the complainant, as told by the service advisors of the OP No.2 to the complainant. The mobile handset used to lag in the touch interface at times but the same used to get resolved as when the device was restarted by the complainant, but the problem persisted it started creating troubles to the complainant in his using of the mobile handset, the problems being unresolved forced the complainant to approach the office of the OP No.2, who is authorized service provider of OP No.1. The service engineer of the OP No.2 at their office/workshop site after conducting the pre-set troubleshooting steps and found that the Handset mentioned above is not properly working and replaced the Handset mentioned above and given New Handset having Replaced IMEI no.354846096102189 vide bill Dated 17.12.2018, 11:55AM. The complainant thereafter felt that even the new/replaced mobile handset started creating problem in its Touch interface issue with the display, after sometime of being replaced, whereby the complainant's issue remained unresolved. Then, again the complainant approached OP No.2 with regard to his mobile handset problem, whereby he was assured that the handset is in good condition and the problem could be resolved by restarting the device and if the problem persists then the complainant could reboot the device, thereby again the OP brushed themselves away from the responsibility of them being service provider. The complainant while using his mobile phone suffered certain touch operating lags/lacks in the accessibility of mobile handset, the fault arising in the touch interface could not being ignored as a glitch, thus the complainant got preliminary inspection of replaced mobile handset from the authorized service center i.e. OP No. 2. The complainant thereafter again approached the office of the OP No.2, whereby the attendant after fierce argument agreed to keep the handset for service, the handset was handed to Madam Kiran and at the time of handing over of the mobile handset it was properly sealed one and having only problem regarding the touch issue with display. The seal was opened by the employees of OP No.2. On 07.03.2019, the handset of complainant was returned to him by Madam Kiran employee of OP No.2 by stating the some internal part is missing from your mobile handset. On being inquired from the office of OP No.2, it was disclosed that the mobile handset opened and checked by Tejbir Singh employee of OP No.2. The complainant was not able to understand that where that missing part has gone, when the mobile handset was given it was given in working position then how it can be possible that a mobile handset has been in working condition since the day of being replaced without one internal part shocked to learn that the Motherboard operating part was missing from replaced mobile handset. The complainant approached number of times to the OP No.2 office for the redressal of his problem, but all in vain. The complainant has suffered the huge loss, mental agony, tension and harassment and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to pay an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- for loss of suffered of monitory loss and Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant and Rs.1,00,000/- as cost of the phone and Rs.50,000/- as litigation expenses.
2. Notice of the complaint was sent to the OPs and accordingly, OP No.1 appeared through its counsel and filed written reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the contentions, submissions and allegations in the complaint are incorrect, vexatious, misleading and denied except which specifically admitted hereinafter. It is further averred that it is the result of complainant’s negligently handling of the device and not due to the manufacturing defect or due to deficiency in service. Despite of complainant’s own negligence the complainant is now trying to claim refund/replacement. It is further averred that the complainant has not produced any sort of expert opinion to prove that the device was defective. It is further averred that the complainant has not produced any evidence to show that the OP No.1 will replace the device beyond the warranty policy or the device was defective with the warranty policy. It is further averred that the complainant is misleading the facts and trying to disappear the report of OP No.1 by alleging frivolous claims, his allegations has led to affect the goodwill of OP No.1. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant has purchased the iPhone from OP No.1 and it is also admitted that the complainant approached the OP No.2 with alleged issue like display stopped responding, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.
3. OP No.3 filed its separate written reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the complainant has not approached with the clean hands before this Forum and have concealed the material facts and filed the present complaint to extort money from the answering OP. It is further averred that the present complaint has been devised as a tool to harass and humiliate the answering OP thereby dragging them in the Court and makes him undergo the rigorous of the prolonged frivolous litigations. It is further averred that the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed as no cause of action has ever arising in favor of the complainant and against the OPs and hence the present complaint is nothing but an abuse of process of law and as such the same is liable to be dismissed under order 7 rule 11 CPC. It is further averred that the mobile phone was purchased by Mr. Gurjeet Singh from the Canada and the present complaint had not been filed by the consumer/owner itself, therefore the complaint is liable to be dismissed. The complainant had annexed the invoice with the complaint which itself shows that said handset was purchased by another person whose name is Mr. Gurjeet Singh, but complaint is filed by the Mr. Harkamal Singh, who is the brother of Gurjeet Singh as per the complaint, but no proof was attached with the complaint, which satisfy that Mr. Harkamal Singh is the owner of the handset, therefore the complaint is liable to be dismissed. The said handset was purchased in Canadian Dollars by the Mr. Gurjeet Singh and case has being filed in Indian Rupees. It is further averred that the LCI is missing from the handset hence as per the terms and condition of respondent no.1 handset is considered as unauthorized modification. On merits, the factum with regard to purchase of the mobile by the complainant from OP No.1 is admitted and it is also admitted that the complainant visited the service center i.e. OP No.2 for the first time on 17.12.2018 and submitted his phone for further diagnoses and repair, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.
4. Rejoinder to the written statement filed by the complainant, whereby reasserted the entire facts as narrated in the complaint and denied the allegations raised in the written statement.
5. In order to prove their respective versions, both the parties have produced on the file their respective evidence.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also gone through the case file very minutely.
7. The contention of the OP is that the complainant is not the consumer of the iPhone of OP, therefore, the complaint is not maintainable. The OP has relied upon the agreement, which is in the name of Gurjeet Singh. This contention is not tenable as it has been proved that the phone was being used by the complainant. The issue regarding the touching problem and face ID was reported by the complainant only. As per Ex.C-2, the mobile phone was brought before the service centre by the complainant Harkamal Singh and problem and description was found face ID locked working and problem was confirmed. This fact has been alleged and admitted that the unit was replaced and the issue was resolved by the complainant on 17.12.2018. The phone was purchased on 17.12.2017. Ex.C-3 is the customer product information. This document also shows that Harkamal Singh reported the OPs for the trouble having touch issue with display. The complainant was having problem of touch not working of this device and they found that internal LCI was missing and the device was returned. The complainant has alleged that it was the OPs from whom the internal part stood missing as the mobile handset was opened and checked by the employee of OP No.2, which is very much clear from the Ex.C-3. The warranty of Apple Care Protection was till 16.12.2019 as per Ex.C-5. The handset was returned prior to the warranty i.e. on 07.03.2019 alleging that the internal part is missing when the seal was opened by the employees of the OP No.2. This clearly shows that the internal part was missing at the time of replacing the iPhone on 17.12.2018. The OPs refused to repair the same. The OPs have produced on record the service report Ex.OP1/3, which clearly shows that the mobile was given to the OPs for service by the complainant himself and vide delivery report Ex.OP1/4/Ex.C-2, the same was replaced. The photographs have been filed on record by the OP to show that the internal part was missing, but there is no report of the expert. As the seals were opened by the OP No.2, then the OP has failed to show that once the seal was opened by them, how the part can be missing from the side of the complainant nor this is the case of the OP that the iPhone was got checked by the complainant from third person. Onus was upon the OP to prove the reason for missing the internal part when the particular part was sealed. Since all the documents are in the name of the complainant and the phone is being used by the complainant, therefore, the complainant has been proved to be consumer, hence the complaint is maintainable. It has been proved that earlier also the defective iPhone was handed over to the complainant, which was replaced and now again the replaced iPhone is also defective which is clear cut deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP No.1 and thus, the complainant is entitled for relief.
8. In view of the above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant is partly allowed and OP No.1 is directed to replace the handset of the complainant with new one of same model and same price. If the complainant wants to purchase mobile of new model, then he will have to bear the cost of difference of mobile of new model. Further, OPs are jointly and severally directed to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant for causing mental tension and harassment and Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses. The entire compliance be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of order. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
9. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.
Dated Jaswant Singh Dhillon Jyotsna Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj
08.01.2024 Member Member President
