DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BARNALA, CAMP COURT AT AMRITSAR, PUNJAB.

 

Complaint Case No : RBT/CC/2018/230

Date of Institution : 28.03.2018/29.11.2021

Date of Decision : 05.07.2022

Smt. Riku Arora w/o Sh. Manish Kumar Arora c/o Ashoka Bakery, Chowk Katra Khazana, Amritsar. 

  …Complainant

Versus

1. Apple India Private Limited, 19th Floor, Concorde Tower-C, UB City No. 24, Vittal Mallya Road, Bangalore-560001 through its Principal Officer.

2. B2X Service Solutions India Private Limited, SCO No. 29, National Shopping Complex, Hide Market, Amritsar through its Manager/Office Incharge.

…Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 12 and 13 of The Consumer Protection Act

Present: Sh. Sandeep Khanna Adv counsel for complainant.

Sh. Munish Menon Adv counsel for opposite party No. 1.

None for opposite party No. 2.

Quorum.-

1. Sh. Ashish Kumar Grover : President

2. Sh. Navdeep Kumar Garg  : Member

(ORDER BY ASHISH KUMAR GROVER PRESIDENT):

    The present complaint has been received by transfer from District Consumer Commission, Amritsar in compliance of the order dated 26.11.2021 of the Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh. The complainant filed the present complaint under Consumer Protection Act against Apple India Private Limited, Bangalore and another. (in short the opposite parties). 

2. The facts leading to the present complaint as stated by the complainant are that the complainant purchased an Apple I-Phone 6S from the opposite party No. 1 through Paytm order dated 22.12.2015 for a sum of Rs. 50,748/- and payment was made vide debit card by the complainant. The said phone was shipped on 25.12.2015 and delivered to the complainant on 27.12.2015. Further warranty was provided up to 26th of December 2015. At the time of purchase the complainant was assured that the product is of best quality and the product is having warranty of free repair till expiry of the warranty period. The opposite party No. 2 is the service center of the opposite party No. 1 and on 2.12.2016 the complainant got extended warranty of the mobile phone on payment of Rs. 4,500/- to the opposite party No. 2 and they assured that the warranty period has been extended up to another one year and will expired on 26.12.2017. In the last week of October 2017 the complainant found problem in I Phone and current occur in receiver while calling at charging time, receiver gets dissorted sound. The complainant lodged complaint with the opposite party No. 2 and mobile was collected by the opposite party and sent to Bangalore for change in display and phone was returned after change of display. But the problem was not removed from the mobile phone. After taking delivery of the phone the complainant on the next day again reported complaint to opposite party No. 2 who took phone and returned on following day informing the complainant that the software has been updated and there will be no complaint in future. 

3. It is further alleged that on 21.11.2017 the complainant again made complaint to the opposite party No. 2 about the same defect who collected the same on 21.11.2017 and was told to take delivery on 2.12.2017 but till date the mobile phone has not been delivered after removing the problem. The complainant time and again inquired from the opposite party about the removal of defect but to no effect. Complainant also sent emails many times in this regard but all invain. Finally, the opposite parties refused to remove defect and even to exchange the said mobile phone with new one which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence, the present complaint is filed seeking the following relief.-

1) The opposite parties be directed to refund the amount of price of the mobile Rs. 50,748/-.  

2) To pay Rs. 25,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment. 

3) To pay Rs. 11,000/- as litigation expenses. 

4) Any other relief to which the complainant found entitled. 

3. Upon notice of this complaint, the opposite party No. 1 filed written version taking objections that the complainant has approached this Commission with unclean hands. The alleged damage caused to the I phone on account of negligent misuse by the complainant will rendered out of warranty and said alleged damage is not attributable to opposite party No. 1. The complainant purchased the I Phone 6 S on 27.2.2015 from Paytm for Rs. 50,748/-. The complainant approached opposite party No. 2 authorized service provider of opposite party No. 1 on 26.10.2017 with regard to current occur in receiver while calling at charging time in his phone. The opposite party No. 2 repaired the same and returned back to the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant never approached opposite party No. 2 for any sort of issues in his device. So, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party No. 1. Further, the complainant has failed to produce any expert opinion to prove that there was any manufacturing defect in the device. 

4. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant purchased the mobile set through Paytm. It is admitted that complainant got his warranty extended till 26.2.2017. The complainant has failed to prove any expert evidence to prove that his device was defective. Rest of the averments already mentioned in the preliminary objections and there is no need to repeat the same here. Lastly, the opposite party No. 1 prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

5. The opposite party No. 2 also filed written reply taking preliminary objections that the complainant has not come to this Commission with clean hands and concealed material facts as the set in question is not having any problem and the complainant is intentionally not collecting the set from the service center. 

6. On merits, it is admitted that complainant purchased I Phone 6S. It is also admitted that the warranty was got extended by the complainant. The complainant approached the opposite party No. 2 on 26.10.2017 with a complaint that current occur in receiver while calling at charging time and set was duly examined and defective part was replaced as per warranty and same was delivered on 8.11.2017 to the complainant. But the complainant again deposited the set complaining the same fault but no problem was found in the set and again set was delivered to the complainant on 10.11.2017. But on 21.11.2017 the complainant again lodged complaint as the set was going two years old and warranty period was going to expire but again no fault was found and same was sent to opposite party No. 2 from the main center and the set found intact. The mobile is perfect and is ready for delivery but the complainant not accepting the same. Lastly, the opposite party No. 2 prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.  

7. In support of her complaint, the complainant tendered into evidence her affidavit Ex.C-1, proof of payment Ex.C-2, copy of verification of serial number Ex.C-3, copy of service report Ex.C-4, copy of emails Ex.C-5 and Ex.C-6 and closed the evidence. 

8. To rebut the case of the complainant, the opposite party No. 1 tendered in evidence affidavit of Priyesh Poovanna Ex.OP-1/1, copy of warranty conditions Ex.OP-1/2, service report Ex.OP-1/3 and closed the evidence. The opposite party No. 2 tendered in evidence documents Ex.OP-2/1 to Ex.OP-2/6 and closed the evidence. 

9. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and opposite party No. 1 and gone through the record on the file. 

10. It is admitted fact between the parties that the complainant purchased the I Phone 6 S on 27.2.2015 from Paytm for Rs. 50,748/-. It is also admitted by both the opposite parties that the complainant got extended the warranty for one more year till 26.12.2017. It is also admitted by the opposite party No. 2 that on 26.10.2017 the complainant approached the opposite party No. 2 with a complaint that current occur in receiver while calling at charging time and opposite party No. 2 replaced the defective part and delivered the same to the complainant on 8.11.2017 after rectifying all the defects. The opposite party No. 2 further argued that thereafter the complainant again submitted the set with same fault but no problem was found in the set and again set was delivered to the complainant but on 21.11.2017 the complainant again lodged complaint as the set was going two years old and warranty period was going to expire but again no fault was found and set was intact. The mobile is prefect and ready for delivery but complainant not accepting the same. From all these facts we are of the view that it is the complainant who has not collected the mobile set from the opposite party No. 2 as the opposite party No. 2 has found no defect in the set and they ready to deliver the same to the complainant.

11. Further, the opposite party No. 1 has taken a preliminary objection that the complainant has failed to produce any expert evidence to prove that there is manufacturing defect in the set. In our view also the expert evidence is necessary to prove manufacturing defect in the mobile set and complainant failed to tender any expert evidence to prove defect in the mobile set. 

12. The Hon'ble National Commission, New Delhi held in case titled Pawan Kumar Versus M/s Nissan Motors India Private Limited bearing Revision Petition No. 2276 of 2017 decided on 3.1.2018 that “Petitioner has failed to place on record any expert opinion regarding alleged manufacturing defect in his vehicle. Deficiency not proved.”

13. The Hon'ble National Commission, New Delhi titled Sanjay Singh Versus Dabloo Bhagat bearing Revision Petition No. 2840 of 2016 decided on 11.5.2018 vide which the Hon'ble Commission held that “The complainant failed to place on record any technical/expert report to support his allegation that the tractor in question was defective.”

Both these citations are fully applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present complaint as in the present case also the complainant has not filed any expert report so failed to prove any manufacturing defect in the mobile set. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. 

14. In view of the above discussion, there is no merit in the  present complaint and same is dismissed. No order as to costs or compensation. However, Complainant can take back her mobile set from from the opposite party No. 2. Copy of the order will be supplied to the parties by the District Consumer Commission, Amritsar as per rules. File be sent back to District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amritsar. 

ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COMMISSION:

        5th Day of July 2022

 

            (Ashish Kumar Grover)

            President

              

(Navdeep Kumar Garg)

Member