Order by:

Sh.Amrinder Singh Sidhu,  President.

1.       The   complainant has filed the instant complaint under section 35 of  the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 on the allegations that to protect his Apple IPhone 12 worth Rs.85,000/-  he purchased one IPhone 12_12 PRO SIL CASE BLACK-ZML from Opposite Party on 30.12.2020 for a sum of Rs.4900/- vide invoice No.9222000000292050 vide Customer no.919029. Further alleges that after the lapse of 20 days from the date of its purchase, the colour of the said case became fade and look of the same case became twin colour. In this regard, the complainant made complaint on 25.01.2021 with the Opposite Party and also sent e-mail for the redressal of his grievances and at this, the Opposite Party assured that the case will be replaced sooner. Again on 26.01.2021, the complainant also made complaint to the Opposite Party. Not only this, the complainant also sent legal notice upon the Opposite Party on 04.02.2021, but till date, the grievance of the complainant has not met and at last refused to admit the rightful claim of the complainant. In this way, said conduct of the Opposite Party clearly amounts to deficiency in service and as such, the Complainant left with no other alternative but to file the present complaint.  Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.

a)       Opposite Parties may be directed to refund the price of the case amounting to Rs.4900/- besides Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental tension ad harassment and Rs.50,000/- as costs of litigation or any other relief to which this District Consumer Commission may deem fit be also granted.

Hence, the present complaint is filed by the Complainant  for the redressal of  their grievances.

2.       Opposite Party appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing  the written version  on the ground inter alia that the complaint is not maintainable; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party and that the complaint is absolutely false and frivolous. It is submitted that admittedly, the complainant purchased one IPhone 12_12 PRO SIL CASE BLACK-ZML from Opposite Party on 30.12.2020 for a sum of Rs.4900/- vide invoice No.9222000000292050 vide Customer no.919029. But the complainant was informed that all external issue on any OP product is a cosmetic damage, which occurs due to normal wear and tear and is not covered under warranty.  On merits, it is submitted that   the complainant is aware that his apple cover is covered by the warranty of the OP. Any cosmetic issue with the same is not covered by the warranty, despite knowing the same, the complainant has filed this complaint which is not maintainable. Moreover, the complainant has to explain on what basis he is claiming that there is a manufacturing defect  and hence, the complaint against Opposite Party may please be dismissed.    

3.       In order to prove his case, the complainant has tendered into evidence  affidavit  of complainant Ex.C1 alongwith copies of documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C5 and closed the evidence.

4.       On the other hand, to rebut the evidence of the complainant,  Opposite Party tendered into evidence  the affidavit of Sh.Sandeep Karmakar Ex.OP1 and Ex.OP2 alongwith copies of documents Ex.OP3 to Ex.O5 and closed the evidence on behalf of Opposite Party.

5.       We have heard the ld.counsel for the complainant as well as ld.counsel for the Opposite Party and also gone through the documents placed on record.

6.       During the course of arguments, ld.counsel for the Complainant as well as ld.counsel for Opposite Party   have mainly reiterated the facts as narrated in the complaint as well as in the written statement respectively. We have perused the rival contentions of  the parties and also gone through the record on file. The main contention of the complainant is that to protect his Apple IPhone 12 worth Rs.85,000/-  he purchased one IPhone 12_12 PRO SIL CASE BLACK-ZML from Opposite Party on 30.12.2020 for a sum of Rs.4900/- vide invoice No.9222000000292050 vide Customer no.919029, copy of the invoice is placed on record as Ex.C3. Further contended that after the lapse of 20 days from the date of its purchase, the colour of the said case became fade and look of the same case became twin colour. In this regard, the complainant made complaint on 25.01.2021 with the Opposite Party and also sent e-mail for the redressal of his grievances, but the  Opposite Party failed to redress the grievance of the complainant. On the other hand, ld.counsel for the Opposite Party has repelled the aforesaid contention of the ld.counsel for the complainant on the ground that  the complainant was informed that all external issue on any OP product is a cosmetic damage, which occurs due to normal wear and tear and is not covered under warranty. It is admitted by both the parties that  the  complainant  purchased one IPhone 12_12 PRO SIL CASE BLACK-ZML from Opposite Party on 30.12.2020 for a sum of Rs.4900/- vide invoice No.9222000000292050 vide Customer no.919029, copy of the bill is Ex.C3. It is also not disputed that when the grievance of the complainant was not redressed with regard to Iphone case so purchased by him from the Opposite Party by spending hefty amount of Rs.4900/- then the complainant also served legal notice upon the Opposite Party, copy of the legal notice is Ex.C4 and its postal proof is Ex.P5. But on the other hand, the Opposite Party has failed to redress the grievance of the complainant and also failed to prove its defence by producing any cogent and convincing evidence on record. Not only this, the Opposite Party also did not give satisfactory reply to the complaints of the complainant with regard to defect in the product in question and it seems that there is some  defect in the product in question as alleged by the complainant and to strengthen his version, the complainant has tendered his duly sworn affidavit Ex.C1. In this regard, Hon’ble Delhi State Commission, New Delhi in case titled as Jugnu Dhillon Vs. Reliance Digital Retail Limited 11(2014) CPJ page 17 has held that

“failure of compressor within 2-3 months of its purchase itself amounts to manufacturing defects- when any company stopped manufacturing particular model under these circumstances only way left is to refund of money alongwith interest- Product found to be defective at the very outset- It is always better to order for refund of amount.”

Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled Hindustan Motors Limited and Anr. Vs. N.Shiva Kumar and Anr. (2000) 10 Supreme Court Cases, 654 also held so.  In the instant case, the colour of the Ipohone case  has fed up within 20 days from the date of its purchase. In this regard, Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi in  case Shirish Vs. C.S.Rahalkar (Dr) in 2010(3) CLT page 209 has held that 

“the respondent had paid Rs.32,500/- for an original Amtrex air –conditioner and not an assembled air-conditioner. The State Commission has rightly held the petitioner guilty of Unfair Trade Practice as defined under the Consumer Protection Act and consequently, directed the petitioner to compensate the respondent for the same.”

As stated above, the complainant proved all these averments through his duly sworn affidavit Ex.C1 and also proved on record the copies of documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C5.  The evidence produced on record  by the complainant remained unrebutted and unchallenged through any cogent and convincing evidence.  

7.       Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we partly allow the complaint of the complainant and direct Opposite Party to refund the price of the IPhone 12_12 PRO SIL CASE BLACK-ZML amounting to Rs.4,900/- (Rupees four thousands nine hundred only) to the complainant (Subject to  return of the IPhone 12_12 PRO SIL CASE BLACK-ZML in question by the complainant) within 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.  Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:11.07.2022.