Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/53/2018

Aaditya Chandel - Complainant(s)

Versus

Apple India Limited & Others - Opp.Party(s)

Party in Person

06 Mar 2023

ORDER

                                                             Date of Complaint Filed : 22.01.2018

                                                             Date of Reservation      : 17.02.2023

                                                             Date of Order               : 06.03.2023

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (SOUTH), CHENNAI-3.

 

PRESENT:    TMT. B. JIJAA, M.L.,                                                 : PRESIDENT

                       THIRU. T.R. SIVAKUMHAR, B.A., B.L.,                 :  MEMBER  I 

                       THIRU. S. NANDAGOPALAN., B.Sc., MBA.,         : MEMBER II

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 53/2018

MONDAY, THE 6^th DAY OF MARCH 2023

Aaditya Chandel,

Pampa Hostel, Room No.219,

IIT Madras,

Chennai – 600 036.                                                                                                                     ... Complainant                

 

..Vs..

1.Apple India Limited (Manager),

   19^th Floor, Concorde Tower C,

   UB City, No.24, Vittal Mallya Road,

   Bangalore 560001, India.

 

2.Ample Care (Manager),

   iCare O No.48B, N No 103,

   1^st Main Road, Gandhi Nagar,

   Adyar, Chennai 600 020.

 

3.Apple (Managing Director),

   Apple Inc. Corporation Office,

   1 Infinite loop Cupertino,

   California – 95014,

   United States.                                                                                                                     ...  Opposite Parties

 

******

Counsel for the Complainant              : Party in Person

Counsel for the 1^st Opposite Party      : M/s. Anand, Samy, Dhruva

Counsel for the 2^nd & 3^rd Opp. Party   : Exparte

 

On perusal of records and after having heard the oral arguments of the Counsel for the Complainant and the Counsel for the 1^st Opposite Parties, we delivered the following:

ORDER

Pronounced by the President Tmt. B. Jijaa, M.L.,

1.      The Complainant has filed this complaint as against the Opposite Parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and prays to direct the Opposite Parties to apologize for all the inconvenience caused to the Complainant and to refund the amount of Rs.28,240/- of product as the customer is still suffering with the issues in product which is no more useful for him anymore and to refund Rs.10,000/ for the damage of screen guard and the amount for frequent visits to the service centre and to pay a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards the academic loss, towards compensation for severe mental tension, untold, misery, trauma, agony, strain, stress, pain , sufferings etc., along with cost of Rs.20,000/-.

2.     The averments of Complaint in brief are as follows:-

The Complainant submitted that he is a student at Indian Institute of Technology, Madras and had purchased Apple iphone6 for good quality and hazzle free service from Flipkart on 04.10.2016 worth Rs.28,240/- with Order ID. OD407244397362053000. After 3 days' Complainant faced freezing issues. Complainant lodged the complaint with the seller and the phone was replaced on dated 04.10.2016. Again, after 15 days of using the new handset, there was again same freezing issue observed. The Complainant visited service centre (Ample, Chennai) and discussed the issue with them. They upgraded the software and told that the same problem will not occur again. As, the same freezing frequency increased on 12.03.2017 the Complainant spoke to the Apple customer care executives and discussed with them the issue in-depth, that Complainant was facing, but didn't get any satisfactory response. They asked him to visit the service center again, wherein Complainant had already been thrice. He visited the service center for the fourth time within 6 months of purchase on 03.04. 2017. Service person asked Complainant to keep the phone for observation. Also upon service the screen guard is removed every time and it costs Rs.1000 to fix a new one which is the direct loss caused to the Complainant at every visit for repair for which he is not liable for. After a week the service executives asked Complainant to change the product as they found the hardware issue on the phone So this was the 2^nd phone that was replaced. Complainant was given a new phone on 08.04.2017 but it more of looked like a refurbished product as it is not in the original packing. In spite of his repeated pleas the service executives didn't pay any attention and asked to receive the same phone if he want. After a month Complainant observed the same issue on the device which is replaced by the service center on 08.04. 2017. Again the issue had been discussed and the evidences for the same had been send to executives on 18.05.2017, 19.06.2017. The Complainant again got unsatisfactory response from the Apple Support. The Complainant once again deposited his phone for service on 13.09.2017 as the same issues were being faced again and again frequently. On 25.09.2017, Mr. Chidambaram (Manager Ample Care, Chennai) informed Complainant that the device is repaired. Complainant informed them again and again and requested them for the proper observation and providing a permanent solution for the repetitive issue arising again and again. Again because of the ignorance and fake assurance the issues again highlighted on the next day after receiving the device, Complainant once again handed over his phone to the service center on 16.11.2017 and again on 21.11.2017 they accepted that there is again a hardware issue and again replaced the phone. So, overall this the 4 device to be replaced within a year.  Already 3 replacements had been done but still the issue is not resolved.Hence the complaint.

3. Written Version filed by the 1^st Opposite Party are as follows:-

The Opposite Party submitted that in the present case the few prefatory facts are necessary for unfolding the sequence of events that followed after the said iPhone 6 S bearing serial No. FFMSG7EQG5MN was purchased from Flipkart on 04.10.2016. The Complainant approached 2^nd Opposite Party who is the authorized service provider of 1^st Opposite Party on 03.04.2017 with regard to freezing, running slow and home button not working issue in his iPhone. Accordingly, the 2^nd Opposite Party made a thorough technical analysis on it and found that the issue was with the ear pods and not with the device and still the device was diagnosed and repaired. The issue was resolved by upgrading the software, further the 2^nd Opposite Party found no other issues or defects in the device. The iPhone was working fine and was returned back in working condition to the Complainant. The Complainant approached 2^nd Opposite Party an authorized service provider of the 1^st Opposite Party for same alleged issues with the device on 13.09.2017, the 2^nd Opposite Party diagnosed the device and found the same and so the display of the device was replaced with the new display and the device was returned back to the Complainant in working condition. The Complainant approached again on 16.11.2017 for the issues regarding freezing, home button not working, the 2^nd Opposite Party diagnosed the device and found the said issues and since the device was under warranty it was replaced with the new iPhone. Thereafter the Complainant never approached 2^nd Opposite Party anytime for any sort of issues in his device. It is pertinent to mention that the Complainant has not produced any evidence in the support of his claims. Hence 1^st Opposite Party is not attributable for any refund/replacement and compensation to the Complainant. It is pertinent to mention that the Complainant has not produced any evidence/service report to show that he had approached 2^nd Opposite Party an authorized service provider of the 1^st Opposite Party after 16.11.2017. The Complainant after replacing the said device never visited 3^rd Opposite Party again any time for any sort of issues in his device. The 1^st Opposite Party had given service to the Complainant whenever the Complainant had visited 3^rd Opposite Party an authorized service provider of the 1^st Opposite Party and so there can be no deficiency in service on the part of the 1^st Opposite Party. It is also pertinent to mention that the Complainant has not suffered any mental agony due to 1^st Opposite Party. It is pertinent to mention that the Complainant has not produced any evidence in support of his claims. There are no records of the Complainant approaching the 1^st Opposite Party or its AASP after 16.11.2017 any time. Despite the same the Complainant has filed this baseless complaint by twisting the facts with an intention to mislead this Hon'ble Forum to enrich illegal benefits from the 1^st Opposite Party. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

4. The Complainant submitted his Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments. On the side of the Complainant, documents were marked as  Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-7. The 1^st Opposite Party submitted its Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments and no documents was marked on his side.  The 2^nd and 3^rd Opposite Parties did not appear before this Commission even after sufficient notice served and remained absent and set exparte.

Points for Consideration:-

1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties?

2. Whether the Complainant is entitled for reliefs claimed?

3. To what other reliefs the Complainant is entitled to?

Point No.1:

        The Complainant contended that he had purchased Apple iphone 6 from Flipkart on 04.10.2016 for Rs.28,240/-. After few days of purchase, the Complainant had faced issues, when he visited service centre (Ample, Chennai) they upgraded the software and answered that the problem will not occur again. After contacting customer care executive had visited the Service Centre on 03.04.2017, where the phone was kept under observation and found that there was a hardware issue on the phone and replaced the phone on 08.04.2017, which looked a refurbished product. After discussing with the executives, once again his phone was given for service on 13.09.2017. On 25.09.2017, the 2^nd Opposite Party had informed the Complainant that the device was repaired, which was received by the Complainant. The next day of receiving the device the issue occurred. Once again the Complainant handed over the phone to the Service Centre on 16.11.2017, where they accepted that there was a hardware issue and again replaced the phone. As the issue persisted the Complainant had sought for recovery of the amount paid towards the product along with compensation.

The contention of the Opposite Party is that the iphone6 bearing Serial No.FFMSG7EQG5MN was purchased from Flipkart on 04.10.2016. The Complainant had approached the 2^nd Opposite Party, who is the authorised service provider of 1^st Opposite Party on 03.04.2017 with regard to freezing, running slow and home button not working issue in his iphone. The 2^nd Opposite Party made a thorough technical analysis on it and found that issue was with the ear pods and not with the device and still the device was repaired by upgrading the software and as there was no other issues the device was returned. Again the Complainant had approached the 2^nd Opposite Party alleging same issues with the device on 13.09.2017, the 2^nd Opposite Party dragged the device and replaced the display. The Complainant had approached the 2^nd Opposite Party on 16.11.2017 for the issues of freezing, home button not working and as the device was under warranty it was replaced with new iphone. Thereafter the Complainant never approached 2^nd Opposite Party anytime for any sort of issues in his device.

        On careful perusal of records and upon hearing the submissions of both the parties, it is evident from Ex.A-1 that the Complainant had purchased an iphone 6 on 04.10.2016 from Flipkart and has been facing certain issues with the mobile, since the date of purchase. The Complainant had taken up the issue to the 2^nd Opposite Party who is the authorised service provider of the 1^st Opposite Party as evident from Ex.A-2, which is the repair Acceptance Form dated 30.11.2016 issued by the 2^nd Opposite Party. Again on 03.04.2017, the Complainant had reported a problem with his mobile such as hanging issue with the device, home buttons not working, external speaker not working intermittently as evident from Ex.A-2, page No.4, which is the Repair Acceptance Form of 2^nd Opposite Party. On 15.07.2017, the Complainant had sent a mail to the 2^nd Opposite Party regarding the freezing issue with his mobile. From Ex.A-2 at page.7 it is   clear that the Complainant had approached the 2^nd Opposite Party reporting hanging and freezing issue of his mobile and got his iphone display replaced on 13.09.2017. Yet again on 20.09.2017 the Complainant had sent email to the 2^nd Opposite Party reporting freezing issue with his device and sought for replacement of the device. Subsequently there are various exchange of emails between the Complainant and the Opposite Party concerning the problem with the iphone and the repairs made by the 2^nd Opposite Party. On 16.11.2017, the Complainant had reported auto restart problem to the 2^nd Opposite Party, who after checking the device and IOS Apple diagnostic test found freezing intermittently and intermittently device got restarted and hence replaced the Iphone on 21.11.2017. On 28.11.2017 the 2^nd Opposite Party by its email had accepted that there was a hardware failure in the device and had replaced the device. Again in December 2017 the Complainant had faced problem with his mobile.

        As per Ex.A-7 at page 54, the Opposite Party company had admitted that there was unexpected shut downs on iphone 6, iphone 6 plus, iphone 6s, iphone 6s plus and iphone SE. It is seen that the United States District Court, Northern District of California had ordered settlement benefits to the owners of iphone 6, who experienced dismished performance of their devices.

        The Opposite Party contended that the Complainant has not produced any evidence to prove that the device had manufacturing defect and there is no expert evidence to support the claim of the Complainant that the device is defective. In support of his submissions the Opposite Party relied on the following decisions.

1. In R.Baskar Vs. D.N Udani and others, IV (2006) CPJ 257 NC, the Hon’ble National Commission has observed that when the article in question suffers from manufacturing defect it is necessary to send the said article for laboratory examination.

2. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in C.N Anantharam Vs. M/s Fiat India Ltd., and others, in SLP No.21178-21180 of 2009 held that as the independent technical expert is of the opinion that there are manufacturing defect in the vehicle, the petitioner will be entitled to refund the price of the vehicle.

3. In Classis Automobiles Vs. Lila Nand Mishra and another, CDJ 2009(cons) case No.373, the Hon’ble National Commission has held that in the absence of any expert evidence merely on the fact that the car was repeatedly brought to the service station for repairs, it  cannot be held that there was manufacturing defect in the car.

4. The Hon’ble State Commission, Chennai in N.R Jayachandran Vs. M/s. Ford India Ltd F.A.No,1033/2011, held that in the absence of expert evidence to establish that there was manufacturing defect no negligence or deficiency on the part of the Opposite Parties.

5. In Ankur Jain Vs. Skoda Auto Pvt Ltd., complaint No.377/2011, State Commission, Delhi, by its order dated 24.03.2019, held that it is incumbent on the Complainant to substantiate through expert opinion regarding manufacturing defect.

6. In R.Kumar Kwatra Apt. Vs. M/s HCL Infosystems Ltd., 2015 SCC Online NCDRC 1349, the Hon’ble National Commission held that in the absence of technical evidence there was no justification in holding that the laptop purchased by the Complainant was defective.

7. The Hon’ble National commission in M/s. Tata Engineering Vs. Mrs.Sujit Kaur, R.P. No.3115 of 2021 observed that for non adherence of instructions contained in warranty manual no fault can be attributed to the Opposite Parties, which is not applicable to the present case as it as not the case of the Opposite Party that the Complainant has not followed the instruction of warranty.

8. The DCDRC, Ariyalur in RBT C.C No.161/2022 by its order dated 02.12.2022 had dismissed the complaint on the ground that the Complainant failed to prove manufacturing defect in the mobile phone.

        In all the above cases the point is that in the absence of expert opinion manufacturing defect could not be proved.

        From the above discussions, and upon perusal of records this Commission is of the considered view that, though expert opinion is not produced by the Complainant, the problem the Complainant is facing with the mobile right from the date of its purchase as elucidated from the exhibits marked on the side of Complainant and the acceptance of the 2^nd Opposite Party of the failure of both software and hardware of the device after diagnostic and all other functional part in their Service Report as well as in their e-mail communications and the admission of Apple Company on the Spontaneous shutting down of iphone 6 device as found in Ex.A-7 which is the same model purchased by the Complainant from the Opposite Party would prove that the Opposite Parties had committed deficiency in service by selling defective product. Accordingly, Point No.1 is answered in favour of the Complainant.

Point Nos.2 and 3:

As discussed and decided Point No.1 against the Opposite Parties, the Opposite Parties are liable to pay a sum of Rs.28,240/- being the cost of the product, and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards deficiency in service and mental agony caused to the Complainant along with a sum of  Rs.5,000/- towards cost of the litigation to the Complainant and the Complainant is not entitled for any other relief/s. Accordingly Point Nos. 2 and 3 are answered. 

 

In the result, the complaint is allowed in part. The Opposite Parties 1 to 3 are jointly and severally  liable to pay a sum of Rs.28,240/- (Rupees Twenty Eight Thousand Two Hundred and Forty Only) being the cost of the product, and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only)  towards deficiency in service and mental agony caused to the Complainant along with a sum of  Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) towards cost of the litigation to the Complainant, within 8 weeks  from the date of receipt of the order, failing which the above said amount of Rs.28,240/- shall carry interest @9% p.a from the date of the  order till the date of realization.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 

          In the result this complaint is allowed in part.

Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Commission, on 6^th March 2023.

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                 B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                       MEMBER I                        PRESIDENT

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Complainant:-

 

Ex.A1	04.10.2016	Invoice of iphone-6
Ex.A2	30.11.2016 30.01.2018	Email copy and other related documents regarding complaint
Ex.A3	14.08.2017 & 28.11.2017	Legal notice to Apple and service Centre
Ex.A4	-	Service reports (Apple)
Ex.A5	-	Email  conversation details (Apple International Support)
Ex.A6	-	Email conversation (Ample Care)
Ex.A7	-	Apple Official acceptance of issue in Ipone 6, 6s
Ex.A8	-	Warranty terms by Apple, Settlement details by Apple as per the US District Court, Copy of Settlement amount against Apple for iphone 6,6s,7,7s.

 

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Opposite Parties:-

NIL

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                    B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                       MEMBER I                         PRESIDENT