Haryana

Karnal

CC/142/2020

Anil Munjal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Apple India Private Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Gagan Chugh

16 Dec 2021

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL  COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                        Complaint No. 142 of 2020

                                                        Date of instt.06.03.2020

                                                        Date of Decision 16.12.2021

 

Anil Munjal son of Shri Nathu Ram Munjal aged about 47 years resident of House no.266, Sector-12, Part-II, Urban Estate, Karnal, District Karnal

 

                                                …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1.     Apple India Private Ltd. No.24, 19^th floor, Concorde Tower-C, UB City, Vittal Mallya Road, Banglore-560001 through its Manager.

 

2.     Ivy Technology International Pvt. Ltd., shop no.3, 2^nd floor, Super Mall Sector-12 Karnal through its Proprietor/Partners/Manager.

                                                                   …..Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.       

      Sh. Vineet Kaushik…….Member

 

Argued by:   Complainant in person.

                    Shri Dheeraj Sachdeva, counsel for OP no.1.

Opposite party no.2 given up.

 

                    (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:   

                

                        The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as after amendment under section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that complainant purchased an I-phone X(64) Grey colour, bearing IMEI no.354858096366896 for a sum of Rs.79,000/- fro Saraswati Enterprises 103 Krishna Nagar, Karnal, vide invoice no.A-102 dated 07.03.2019. The said mobile phone was activated on 12.03.2019. At the time of purchase of the mobile phone, the complainant was apprised that the proper service will be provided by authorized service centre of OP no.1 i.e. OP no.2. After the period of one month, signal loss problem in the said mobile set was started and there was a voice break problem while making incoming and outgoing calls. The complainant contacted the dealer regarding the problem and dealer advised to visit authorized service station at Karnal. Accordingly complainant visited the authorized service centre of the company i.e. OP no.2. The official of the OP no.2 advice the complainant to change the network service provider (mobile operator) as this problem according to them was due to network problem of the mobile service provider, accordingly complainant changed the Network Service Provider to Vodafone post paid from Airtel postpaid then the Vodafone prepaid and again to JIO 4G. In the meantime, the complainant visited the OP no.2 several times with the same problem. OP no.2 used to update the software in the said mobile phone but problem was remained same moreover touch screen of the phone become unresponsive.  On 05.02.2020 complainant visited the OP no.2 and asked them to seriously look into the problem in the said mobile phone. They took the mobile set from complainant and assured to the effect that very soon this problem in the said mobile phone will be removed by them. OP no.2 returned the said mobile phone set to the complainant on 13.02.2020 but signal lost problem in the said phone remained same. Complainant again contacted the OP no.2 on 18.02.2020. OP no.2 kept the mobile set and assured that this problem will be solved. The mobile set returned to the complainant on 21.02.2020, however, the problem in the said mobile phone was remained same. Complainant again deposited the mobile set with the OP no.2 on 26.02.2020 with the same problem which was returned to the complainant on 03.03.2020, however, the problem in the said mobile set remained same till date. Complainant is an Advocate by profession and it is very important for the complainant to communicate with his clients as well as relatives, friends frequently but due to the aforesaid problem in the mobile set complainant is facing hardship and suffering harassment as well as humiliation at the hands of the OPs. In this way there was deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence this complaint.

2.             On notice, OP no.1 appeared and filed its written version stating therein that OP no.1 is a company of global repute and is an internationally renewed leader in innovation and advancements in the sphere of telecommunication devices, computing and communications. It is further stated that the present complaint is a malafide one, devoid of merits and contradictory to the established principles of law. The instant complaint has been devised to mislead this Commission. It is further stated that it is a common market principle and also an established position of law that in case the device has issues covered within the warranty policy, he same shall be repaired or replaced, as the case may be. The products that are not faulty and are functioning well cannot be replaced merely at the discretion of the complainant. The complainant cannot claim warranty as provided by the manufacturer, if there is no defect detected by the Apple Authorized Service Provider (AASP) or centralized Repair Centre of the OP no.1. It is appropriate to state that the customer must comply with the warranty policies else it will be considered as breach of the warranty policies and they cannot clam relief under the Consumer Protection Act. It is further stated that the complainant had purchased an Iphone X having serial No.DNPX8GVEJCLF on 13.03.2019. After using it for almost a year and before the one year warranty issued by the OP no.1 expired, the complainant approached the OP no.2 on 05.02.2020 with regard to some network issues pertaining to his iphone. OP no.2 who is the authorized service centre of OP no.1 inspected the said iphone and found its display to be having some issues. As the iphone was under warranty the display was replaced. After replacement of the display the iphone was functioning well and the complainant has acknowledged the same while collecting it back from the OP no.2 on 13.02.2020. The complainant again approached the OP no.2 on 18.02.2020 complaining about some network issues on his iphone. OP no.2 inspected the device and found nothing wrong with the said device as it was functioning well and handed it back to the complainant on 21.02.2020. Complainant again approached the OP no.2 on 26.02.2020 complaining about some network issues on his iphone. OP no.2 inspected the device and sent it to the Repair Centre (RC) of the OP no.1 at Bengaluru for a detailed inspection and repair (if any) of the said iphone. The RC ran tests and found nothing wrong with the said device as it was functioning well and handed back to complainant on 03.03.2020. OP no.2 explained the complainant that the device was functioning absolutely perfectly, however, the network dropping was beyond its scope of work as it is provided by the Network Service Providers. If the network is not provided properly it will not enable the device to receive or make calls. It is further stated that complainant has not provided any evidence to show that he had approached his network service provider to check why the signals were disruptive and is unfairly blaming the iphone used by him.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP no.1. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             OP no.2 given up by the complainant, vide his statement dated 02.07.2021 being unnecessary party.

4.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

5.             Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, tax invoice Ex.C1, service call report Ex.C2, delivery challans Ex.C3, email dated 03.03.2020 Ex.C4, service call report Ex.C5, delivery challan Ex.C6, email dated 13.02.2020 Ex.C7, service call report Ex.C8, email dated 21.02.2020 Ex.C9 and closed the evidence on 24.11.2021 by suffering separate statement.

6.             On the other hand, OP no.1 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sandeep Karmakar Ex.RW1/A, letter of authorization Ex.OP1, warranty policy Ex.OP2 and closed the evidence on 08.02.2021 by suffering separate statement.

7.             We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

8.             The complainant, while reiterating the contents of the complaint, has vehemently submitted that he purchased an Iphone of the OP company, vide cash memo no.A-102 dated 07.03.2019 to the tune of Rs.79,000/- with the warranty of one year. After sometimes of its purchase iphone creating problems. The signal loss problem and voice problem while making incoming and outgoing calls. The complainant contacted to the OP no.2 service centre of the company and narrated the aforesaid problem. OP no.2 kept the iphone but did not success to rectify the defect after their several efforts. He further submitted that now he has purchased new mobile set and he has no need of mobile set. Hence, prayed for allowing the complaint.

9.             Per contra, learned counsel for OP no.2, reiterating the contents of the written version, has vehemently argued that there was no problem in the iphone in question. He further argued that complainant used the iphone for almost a year and before the one year warranty issued by the OP no.1 expired, the complainant approached the OP no.2 on 05.02.2020 with regard to some network issues pertaining to his iphone. OP no.2, who is the authorized service centre of OP no.1 inspected the said iphone and found its display to be having some issues. As the iphone was under warranty the display was replaced. After replacement of the display the iphone was functioning well and the complainant has acknowledged the same while collecting it back from the OP no.2 on 13.02.2020. The complainant again approached the OP no.2 on 18.02.2020 complaining about some network issues on his iphone. OP no.2 inspected the device and found nothing wrong with the said device as it was functioning well and handed it back to the complainant on 21.02.2020. Complainant again approached the OP no.2 on 26.02.2020 complaining about some network issues on his iphone. OP no.2 inspected the device and sent it to the Repair Centre (RC) of the OP no.1 at Bengaluru for a detailed inspection and repair (if any) of the said iphone. The RC ran tests and found nothing wrong with the said device as it was functioning well and handed back to complainant on 03.03.2020. OP no.2 explained the complainant that the device was functioning absolutely perfectly, however, the network dropping was beyond its scope of work as it is provided by the Network Service Providers. If the network is not provided properly it will not enable the device to receive or make calls. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

10.           Admittedly, on 07.03.2019, complainant had purchased an iphone X(64) grey from Saraswati Enterprises, vide invoice Ex.C1 on making payment of Rs.79,000/-.

11.           As per version of the complainant after sometime of the purchase of iphone in question it started giving problem. This fact is admitted by the OP no.1 in its written version that on 05.02.2020 complainant approached the OP no.2 i.e. service centre of the company for network issues in the iphone. OP no.2 found issue in the display of the iphone as the iphone was under warranty the display was replaced. Thereafter, complainant approached the OP no.2 on 13.02.2020, on 18.02.2020 and then on 26.02.2020 for some network issues on his iphone. It means that the problems were again started in the iphone within warranty period. In support of his version, complainant placed on file his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C9. It is evident from the documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C9 the defect in the iphone has been arisen during warranty period. Hence, the act of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

12.           OP no.2 was given up by the complainant being unnecessary party.

13.           The complainant submits that he has purchased new mobile as he was in need of mobile phone urgently and now he does not want to replace his aforesaid iphone and he wants refund the total cost of the iphone in question alongwith litigation expenses, compensation in lieu of mental agony and harassment.

14.            Complainant has used the mobile phone near about one year. It would be justified if 30% of the total value is deducted being depreciation value of the mobile set in question. The value of the iphone was Rs.79,000/- and after deducting 30% it has come to Rs.55,300/-. Thus, we are of the considered view that complainant is entitled for Rs.55,300/-.

15.           Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, we allow the present complaint partly and direct the OP no.1 to pay Rs.55,300/- to the complainant. No order as to costs. Complainant is also directed to return the old iphone in question alongwith accessories to the OP no.1. This order shall be complied with within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which the awarded amount will carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of order till its realization. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:16.12.2021

                                                                       

                                                                  President,

                                                       District Consumer Disputes

                                                       Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

(Vineet Kaushik)       

                            Member