Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/640/2015

Ankit Watts - Complainant(s)

Versus

Apple India Private Limited, - Opp.Party(s)

Shranav Katyal Adv. & Raghav Gulati Adv.

03 Mar 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	640 of 2015
Date  of  Institution	:	05.11.2015
Date   of   Decision	:	03.03.2016

 

 

 

 

 

Ankit Watts son of Sh.Purshotam Watts, Resident of House No.3160, Sector 38-D, Chandigarh.   

 

             …..Complainant

Versus

 

1]  Apple India Private Limited, 19^th Floor, Concorde Tower C, UB City, No.24, Vittal Mallya Road, Bangalore 560001, India

 

2]  F1 Info Solutions and Services Pvt. Ltd., SCO No.274, Sector 32-D, Chandigarh 160021, India

 

 

….. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN                 PRESIDENT

         SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU       MEMBER

         MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA             MEMBER

 

 

For complainant(s)      :     Sh.Shranav Katyal, Advocate

 

For Opposite Party(s)   :     Sh.Deppak Jain, Adv. for OP-1.

OP-2 Exparte.

 

 

PER JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER

 

 

          As per the case, the complainant, a Medical Physicist in PGI, Chandigarh, had purchased iPhone 6 on 17.10.2014 from Panchkula (Ann.C-1).  It is averred that the said mobile handset started giving problem in Sept., 2015 with Ringer/Silent switch and as such take it to Opposite Party No.2.  The OP No.2 inspected the device, re-flashed the software and returned back.  However, the same problem reoccurred on 12.9.2015, so the handset was again taken to Opposite Party No.2, who issued Job Sheet/Call Report NO.53907 with details of their inspection and mentioning the physical conditions of the device as “OK” and “Powering On” (Ann.C-2).  Since, the handset in question was within warranty, so Opposite Party No.2 assured the complainant that the device will be replaced within 3-4 working days. However, the complainant was surprised to receive a call from Opposite Party NO.1 on 14.9.2015 to the effect that there is a water patch on the screen of the device and the same is physically damaged and hence cannot be replaced under warranty.  It is pleaded that the phone in question was in perfect physical condition, when it was handed over to Opposite Party No.2, which is mentioned in the Job Sheet.  The matter was again brought to the notice of OPs vide e-mail Ann.C-3, but nothing was done.  Hence, this complaint has been filed.

 

2]       The Opposite Party No.1 (Apple India Pvt. Ltd.) has filed the reply and admitted the sale of phone in question.  It is stated that the said Service Report No.53907 was issued as acknowledgement by Opposite Party No.2 with regard to the complainant’s handing over the iPhone to it for inspection, but once it was opened for inspection, there was liquid damage found. As the complainant was not satisfied, the device was referred to Opposite Party No.1’s Site Support Engineering (SSE) team to ascertain the findings of Opposite Party No.2, who also confirmed that this device is not covered under the warranty as there is clear evidence of liquid damage in the iPhone and it is damaged.  The photographs clicked at the time of diagnosis and the service report issued by Opposite Party NO.2 rejecting the replacement of the iPhone, are attached as Ann.R-2 & R-3.  That the complainant has concealed the material facts from the Forum. It is pleaded that the complainant’s iPhone was actually damaged by acts and reasons attributable to the complainant namely liquid damage, which happened due to the fault of the complainant. Rest of the allegations have been denied with a prayer to dismiss the complaint.

   

         The Opposite Party No.2 though being duly served through registered post-dated 29.12.2015, failed to put in appearance on 2.2.2016, thus raising presumption under Sub-clause (2) of Regulation 10 of The Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005, was proceeded exparte vide order dated 2.2.2016.

 

3]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

4]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the complainant, ld.Counsel for Opposite Party No.1 and have also perused the record.

 

5]       The complainant had purchased an iPhone 6 (64GB) on 17.10.2014 by paying Rs.62,500/- and claims to be a dedicated customer of Apple Brand equipments.  The complainant came across some functional problem in his handset on 5.9.2015 and took the same to Opposite Party No.2, who in turn rebooted its software and no job-sheet was created.  However, on occurrence of same problem again on 12.9.2015, the handset was deposited with Opposite Party No.2, who advised the complainant that being within the warranty period, the handset in question was replaceable and asked the complainant to visit in 3/4 days time.  It is also averred that the handset in question was thoroughly inspected before the job sheet No.53907 (Ann.C-2) was issued to him.  The physical condition of the handset in question was OK and the only issue was with regard to the ringer & silent switch. However, the complainant is aggrieved of the receipt of phone call on 14.9.2015 disclosing him that there was a watch patch on the screen of the device, which amounted to physical damage to the handset, thus disqualifying the complainant for any warranty terms & conditions. 

 

6]       The Opposite Party NO.1 denied the replacement of the handset. The complainant escalated his grievance to the OPs by writing numerous annexed as Ann.C-3 (Page No.11 to 24 of the complaint), finding no favourable response, the complainant even served a legal notice dated 30.9.2015 through his counsel, but had to file the present complaint for the redressal of his grievance. 

 

7]       The Opposite Party No.1 while contesting the claim of the complainant has defended itself on the ground that the complainant’s handset was out of warranty terms & conditions for the reason that there was an ingress of liquid below the screen and thus, the Opposite Party No.1 was not duty bound to either repair or replace under the warranty clause, which was offered at the time of purchase of the handset.  Thus claiming no deficiency in service on its part, has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

8]       We have perused the documents placed on record by the parties and are of the opinion that the complainant’s handset in question was duly inspected by Opposite Party No.2 before it was taken for further action on the reported problems suffered by it.  A job card was created bearing NO.53907 (Ann.C-2) and while mentioning the physical condition of the handset in question, the same was reported to be “OK”. The working condition of the equipment was reported as “Power On” and the diagnosis for which the handset was reported finds mentioned with regard to “Ringer/Silent switch issue”. The said job card was issued under the seal & signature of Opposite Party No.2.  However, the reply/version of the Opposite Party No.1 claims that the handset was opened thereafter and a case of physical damage was made out for the reason that there was ingress of water under the screen of the handset in question.  In order to substantiate this fact, the Opposite Party NO.1 has placed on record two photographs (Ann.R-2 Page 16 & 17), wherein some mark is visible on the right hand edge of the handset. Unfortunately, these two photographs do not identify that the same belong to the handset of the complainant nor there is any proof about the date and time when these photographs sere clicked as all the electronic devises, now a days, also display such status of photograph whenever the same is generated.  Therefore, the facts that this photograph was clicked after 12.9.2015 i.e. when the Service Report NO.53967 was handed over to the complainant nor that the same belongs to the handset of the complainant. Furthermore, if the version of Opposite Party No.1 is to be believed then, the ingress of water which is visible on these phonographs should have been reported by Opposite Party No.2, while filling up the Job Card Ann.C-2, as there was no necessity to open the handset in question and declare the ingress of water, which is otherwise visible on the face of it.   Therefore, the defence of Opposite Party NO.1, with regard to the breach of warranty terms & conditions does not hold ground. 

 

9]       The Opposite Party No.2, who preferred not to join the proceeding of the present complaint, even after being properly served, was the best person to address these issues and furthermore, as Opposite Party NO.1 has failed to convince us that in what manner, the information  with regard to the handset in question was shared between Opposite Party No.1 & 2, compels us to believe that the issue of ingress of water in the screen of the handset in question is an afterthought only to deny the complainant his rightful due.  Such an act of the Opposite Parties amounts to deficiency in service on their part.

 

10]      In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Parties are found deficient in rendering proper service to the complainant. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant is allowed qua OPs jointly & severally. The Opposite parties are jointly & severally directed as under:-

 

[a]      To refund the invoice price of the handset in question i.e. Rs.62,500/- as per Ann.C-1 to the complainant.

 

[b]      To pay Rs.25,000/- to the complainant as consolidated amount of compensation for causing mental agony and harassment on account of deficiency in service.

[c]     To pay Rs.10,000/- towards litigation expenses to the complainant. 

         The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties jointly & severally; thereafter, they shall be liable to pay an interest @18% per annum on the amount as mentioned in sub-para [a] & [b] above from the date of filing of the complaint till it is paid, apart from paying litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/-.

 

         The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

03^rd March, 2016                                                         

                                                                        Sd/-

 (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

Om