Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/156/2015

Kewal Nain Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Apple India Private Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. lalit Mohan Chanana.

31 Jul 2015

ORDER

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

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	156 of 2015
Date  of  Institution	:	23.03.2015
Date   of   Decision	:	31.07.2015

 

 

 

 

 

Kewal Nain Singh son of Sh.Bhagat Singh, resident of 5 Esprit Ave, Cranbourne North Vic 3977 Australia, through his Attorney Sh.Harvinder Singh son of Sh.Bhagat Singh, resident of H.No.2033, Phase-7, Mohali, Tehsil Mohali, Distt. SAS Nagar (SPA).

 

             …..Complainant

Versus

 

1]  Apple India Private Limited, 19^th Floor, Concorde Tower ‘C’ UB City, No.24, Vittal Mallya Road, Bangalore 560001 Karnataka State, through its Manager Customer Support.

 

2]  Paramatrix Info Solutions Pvt. Ltd., SCO 112-113, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh, India, through its Manager/Head.

 

….. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN                 PRESIDENT

         SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU       MEMBER

         MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA             MEMBER

 

 

For complainant(s)      :     Sh.Lalit Mohan Chanana, Counsel for                   complainant.

 

For Opposite Party(s)   :     Opposite Party-1 exparte.

Sh.Gaurav Bhardwaj, Counsel for the       Opposite Party No.2.

 

 

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

 

          The complainant has preferred the present complaint through his Attorney/Brother Sh.Harvinder Singh. As per the case, the complainant had purchased a mobile Apple i-Phone 6, 64 GB, Space Grey at Australia in the month of September, 2014 and is in warranty period. However, when the complainant visited India, all of a sudden on 6.3.2015 the said mobile handset had gone dead.  As such, it was taken to authorised service provider of Apple i.e. Opposite Party No.2, who checked the mobile handset as well as its warranty. It is averred that the staff of Opposite Party No.2 has told that since the mobile in question is in International Warranty period, it will be replaced with new set within few days and accordingly Job Card Ann.B was prepared. It is also averred that the mobile set in question was opened by the attendant of Opposite Party No.2 and after properly verifying the position of the set in question, it was assured that the set in question will be replaced with new one being under warranty. However, surprisingly, on 10.3.2015, the Opposite Party No.2 telephonically informed the complainant that the set in question is water damaged and will not be replaced, whereas the handset was already checked by opening it by Opposite Party No.2 on the date of its deposit. The matter was also taken up with customer care centre of Opposite Party Company, but nothing was done. It is pleaded that from the job sheet/ service report, issued by Opposite Party No.2, it is very much clear that at the time of submitting the mobile set in question, it was not detected in checking by concerned staff that any alleged part was missing or allegedly water damaged and if it would have been so, then on the job sheet dated 7.3.2015, it would have been certainly mentioned that the set in question will not be covered under warranty and the repair cost would have been mentioned in it, which is not there.  It is further pleaded that now Opposite Party No.2 is asking for the repair cost of Rs.23000/- though the handset is within warranty.  Hence, this complaint has been filed alleging the said act & conduct of the OPs as gross deficiency in service.

 

2]       The Opposite Party No.1 did not turn up despite service, hence it was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 28.4.2015. 

         The Opposite Party NO.2 has filed the reply and admitted the receipt of mobile handset in question and issuance of job sheet.  It is denied that the mobile in question was mechanically or technically checked.  It is submitted that the answering Opposite Party has received the dead unit of mobile from the complainant and it was requested that the same will be checked after chat with Apple and the complainant can confirm the status of his mobile after the answering Opposite Party had chat with Apple India Pvt. Ltd because the warranty provider is Apple India and not the answering Opposite Party.  It is denied that the complainant or his friend was ever assured that the mobile will be replaced with new one.  It is submitted that the mobile of the complainant was damaged due to water and the warranty was breached, as such the same cannot be replaced or repaired under warranty. Rest of the allegations have been denied with a prayer to dismiss the complaint.

 

3]       The Complainant also filed rejoinder thereby reiterating the averments as made in complaint and controverting that of the Opposite Party No.2 made in the reply.

 

4]       Parties led evidence in support of their contention.

 

5]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the complainant, ld.Counsel for Opposite Party No.2 and have also perused the record.  

 

6]       The submissions on behalf of the complainant are proved to the extent that the complainant purchased Apple i-Phone 6, 64 GB Space Grey from Australia in the month of Sept., 2014.

 

7]       It is alleged by the complainant that after the purchase of the said mobile handset, all of a sudden it become dead on 6.3.2015, when the complainant visited India.  The said mobile was under international warranty, thus the same was submitted to Opposite Party No.2- Paramatrix Info Solutions Pvt. Ltd. i.e. authorised service centre of Opposite Party No.1 on 7.3.2015.  Further that the Opposite Party No.2 after mechanically and technically checking the said handset in question to its satisfaction, assured that since the same is under international warranty period, so the same will be replaced within a few days and issued Job Card/Service Report accordingly (Ann.B – Ann.OP-2/1).  It is alleged that despite assuring the replacement, Opposite Party No.2 refused to replace it by falsely claiming that the said handset in question is water damaged so is out of warranty. 

 

8]       On the contrary, the Opposite Party No.2 submitted that the claim of the complainant has been repudiated in accordance with the terms & conditions of the warranty.  Further stated that complainant approached them with dead unit on 7.3.2015 and was duly informed that the status of his mobile handset and warranty will only be told after consulting with Apple India Pvt. Ltd., as the warranty is given by them only.  Further claimed that Mobile in question was damaged due to water and warranty was breached, as such the same cannot be replaced or repaired under the warranty, so there is no deficiency in service on their part, thus request for the dismissal of the complaint has been made.

 

9]       The above submissions of Opposite Party No.2 are out rightly rejected being vague as the same are not supported by any cogent proof.  No reason is recorded for declaring the unit as ‘dead unit’ in the Job Card (Ann.B).  The said Job Sheet/Service Report dated 07.03.2015 (Ann.B) (Ann.OP-2/1) reveals that the mobile in question was declared as ‘dead unit’ after thorough checking of the same. The factum of presence of water content is nowhere recorded in the Job Card. The said Job Card/Sheet also reveals the date of purchase of the mobile in question as 9^th Sept., 2014 and also it is under Warranty on the date of its going out of order. Despite repeated requests and issuance of the e-mail dated 15.3.2015, the grouse of the complainant remained unredressed. In such scenario, it is right to conclude that no proper services were rendered to the complainant by the Opposite Parties for which the complainant was forced to indulge in litigation for the redressal of his grievance. As there is recording on the Job Sheet (Ann.B) (Ann.OP-2/1) that the said mobile in question is a ‘dead unit’, then there is no question to direct the Opposite Party No.2 to repair the same.  So, it is appropriate to decide that the price of the said mobile handset be refunded, it being damaged within the warranty period. 

 

10]      In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the complaint deserves to be allowed.  Accordingly, the complaint is allowed and the Opposite Parties are jointly & severally directed as under:-

        

a]  To refund Rs.62,500/- being the cost of the mobile handset of the complainant.

 

b]  To pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant for causing him mental agony and physical harassment;

 

C]  To pay Rs.7,000/- towards litigation expenses.

 

         The above said order shall be complied with by the Opposite Parties within 45 days of its receipt, failing which they shall be liable to pay interest on the above awarded amount of Rs.62,500/- (cost of the handset) and compensation amount of Rs.10,000/- at the rate of 18% p.a. from the date of filing the complaint till it is paid, besides paying litigation expenses of Rs.7000/-.

 

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

Announced

31.07.2015                   

                                                                                       Sd/-

 (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

 (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

Om                                                                                                                        

 

 

DISTRICT FORUM – II

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.156 OF 2015

PRESENT:   None   Dated the 31st day of July, 2015

O R D E R                        Vide our detailed order of even date, recorded separately, the complaint has been allowed against Opposite Parties.                    After compliance, file be consigned to record room.

 

(Priti Malhotra)	(Rajan Dewan)	(Jaswinder Singh Sidhu)
Member	President	Member