Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/702/2022

VINOD SINGH PUNDIR - Complainant(s)

Versus

APPLE INC - Opp.Party(s)

19 May 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/702/2022
Date of Institution	:	3.8.2022
Date of Decision	:	19.5.2023

 

Vinod Singh Pundir S/o Sh. Jagat Singh resident of H. No.1406, Saini Vihar, Phase 3, Baltana, Zirakpur, Punjab.

.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1.   M/s Apple India Private Limited 19^th floor, Concorde Tower C, UB City, No.24, Vittal Mallya Road, Bangalore 560001 through its Managing Director.

2.   Infinite Retail Limited as Croma SCO No.1094, Ground floor, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh.

 .  … Opposite Parties

 

CORAM :	PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                       

ARGUED BY		Complainant in person.
		Sh. Rahul Garg and Sh. Manpreet Sawhney counsel for OP No.1. OP No.2 exparte.

Per SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, Member

1. Briefly stated   the complainant purchased iphone 12 128GB Blue from Op No.2 on 27.10.2021 vide invoice Annexure C-1. It is alleged that the said iphone 12 abruptly stopped operating approximately after 3 months of purchasing.  The complainant went to the nearest iphone retailer in Panchkula   where the professionals  examined  the iphone but could not identify the fault accordingly the handset in question was sent to bangalore repair centre  to get the fault fixed and the complainant was given temporary phone to use. After a few days the complainant came to know that the handset in question could not be repaired as it is beyond the  eligibility of repair because of unauthorized modification. It is pleaded that the complainant being a educated person did not make any modification ion therein as   the handset was within the warranty period. The complainant requested the OPs to repair the handset in question but they refused to repair the same, alleging the aforesaid act of Opposite Parties deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part, this complaint has been filed
2. The Opposite Party NO.1 in its reply stated that the complainant himself admitted that he is aware of the fact that if a device is within the warranty period the same is to be brought to the manufacturer to fix any issues in the device which may have arisen during the warranty period. It is averred that despite being aware of the same the complainant subjected his iphone to unauthorized modification which invalidated the terms of warranty. Thus, the OP No.1 is under no obligation to provide any repair services to the complainant. All other allegations made in the complaint has been denied being wrong.
3. OP No.2 did not turn up despite due service, hence vide order dated 17.11.2022 it was proceeded against exparte
4. Despite grant of ample opportunities to complainant, no rejoinder filed hence, opportunity to file rejoinder by complainant was closed by this Commission vide order dated 28.2.2023.
5. Contesting parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and gone through the record of the case.
7. The main grievance of the complainant is that  the handset in question stopped functioning during warranty period and inspite of taking up the matter with the OPs neither  they repaired it nor they replaced it. Even they failed to refund the amount paid to them.
8. On perusal of complaint it is observed that when the subject handset became faulty, the OPs issued the complainant another  temporary handset for use till such time the handset in question was to be repaired.
9. It is also observed after thorough examination of the handset in question, the OPs had agreed for issuance of an iphone to the complainant on loan basis, as per iphone loan agreement which has been duly signed by the complainant. We are of the view that the iphone on loan could not have been issued by the OPs if the handset in question was having unauthorized modifications and the same could have been intimated to complainant  that due to unauthorized modification warranty has lapsed, rather than issue of iphone on loan basis. So, we can safely draw a conclusion that at the time of deposit of handset no modifications were carried out by the complainant.
10. In view of above foregoing, we are of the concerted view that the handset deposited by the complainant with the OPs for repairs did not have unauthorized modification when complainant submitted the  same to the OPs for repairs at the time of issue of iphone on loan basis.  Thus, the OPs are deficient in rendering service by not repairing the handset in question or replacing the same with a new one or not refunding the invoice price thereof.
11. In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint partly succeeds and the same is accordingly partly allowed. OPs are directed as under:-

1. to refund the invoice price of Rs.66,199/- with interest @9% P.A.from the date of filing of complaint till realization
2. to pay composite amount of Rs.7000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment and towards litigation costs.

 

12.      This order be complied with by the OPs within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization.
13.      Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

			sd/- [Pawanjit Singh]
			President
			sd/-
			[Suresh Kumar Sardana]
mp			Member