Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/833/2017

Ravi Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Apple India Private Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Daljit Singh Adv.

11 Jan 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

Ravi Sharma r/o H.No.18/3, Attawa, Sector 42-B, Chandigarh-160036.

                                ...  Complainant.

Versus

1.     Apple India Private Ltd. through its Managing Director/Authorized Signatory having its address at 19^th Floor, Concorde Tower C, UB City, No.24, Vittal Mallya Road, Bangalore-560001, India.

2.     F1 Info Solution & Services Pvt. Ltd., through its Managing Director/Authorized Signatory having its address at SCO No.274, First Floor, Sector 32-D, Chandigarh.

3.     Paytm website through its Managing Director/Authorized Signatory having its address at B-121, Sector 5, Noida 201301,India.

…. Opposite Parties.

BEFORE: SHRI RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

SHRI RAVINDER SINGH, MEMBER

Argued by:

Sh.Daljit Singh, Adv. for the complainant

Sh.Devinder Kumar, Adv. for OP No.1

Sh.Pushpinder Kaushal, Adv. for OP No.2.

None for OP No.3.

PER RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

1.         Briefly stated, the complainant purchased a mobile phone make Apple iphone 7 128GB Jet Black online from OP No.3 website after paying a sum of Rs.65145/- vide bill dated 24.02.2017.  However from very beginning, it started giving heating issues and used to get switched off on its own frequently but the same were ignored by him treating them as minor software lags and only after switching off/restarting the mobile phone, these issues used to get resolved.  It has further been averred that in the month of August, 2017, the mobile phone got switched off and it did not start even after making a lot of efforts and he took it to OP No.2 who after inspection told that the mobile phone was looking fine and had no sign of opening/ repairs since purchase date; therefore, it has been switched off permanently(dead) due to some manufacturing defect and, therefore, the same was to be swapped with a new one and for this reason the same was to be sent to OP No.1 for inspection  and during the period, a loaner mobile handset of inferior quality was given to him.  It has further been averred that after inspection, OP No.1 refused to swap the mobile phone and returned the same on the ground that he had done some modification in the mobile phone.  It has further been averred that he requested the OP Nos.1 and 2 many times but all in vain and finally he got served a legal notice dated 26.09.2017 upon them.  It has further been averred that the OPs have failed to redress his grievance despite the fact that the same became dead within warranty period. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
2.         In its written statement, OP No.1 while admitting the factual matrix of the case has pleaded that the complainant had approached OP No.2 on 08.08.2017 with regard to some alleged issues in the mobile phone  and on inspection it was found to be damaged due to internal modifications, hence was refused service/replacement as it had violated the warranty terms and conditions.  It has further been pleaded that had the mobile phone  was found to be having genuine issues then OP No.2 would have repaired/replaced it under warranty based on its findings.  It has further been pleaded that there is manufacturing defect in the mobile phone. The remaining allegations have been denied, being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on its part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
3.         In its separate written statement, OP No.2 has pleaded that the complainant visited it for resolving the alleged defects in the mobile phone within the warranty period.  However, it was denied that OP No.2 had stated/given any remarks to the effect that the mobile phone was switched off permanently (dead) due to manufacturing defect in the mobile phone.  However, it had given job sheet remarks as devise not powering on, if in case unauthorized modification/tampering /liquid /damaged found, then requote was to be provided, if the requote was declined then the customer was to pay Rs.2010/- as service charges fees and except this no other remarks  were given by it.  It has further been pleaded that the complainant had done the modifications with the mobile phone and the same is not covered under the warranty period.  The remaining allegations have been denied, being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on its part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
4.         In its separate written statement, OP No.3 has pleaded that OP No.3 is into the business of marketplace based model of e-commerce wherein it provides information technology platform on a digital and electronic network to act as a facilitator between the buyer and seller. Hence being a market place, it has specifically informed the buyers on its portal that OP No.3 is not a warrantor of the products/service being offered on its portal by various sellers/merchants.  It was also made clear to the customer that any issue or dispute regarding the warranty, guarantee quality and service will be addressed either by the manufacturer/service provider or the merchant and the customer shall handle such issues and disputes directly with the merchant/manufacturer.  It has further been pleaded that the answering OP is neither seller nor the manufacturer nor the service center which provides after sale service of the product in question. The remaining allegations have been denied, being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on its part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
5.         We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and have gone through the documents on record.
6.         After hearing the rival contentions of the Counsel for the parties and going through the evidence on record, we are of the considered view that the complaint is liable to be accepted for the reasons stated hereinafter.   It is an admitted fact between the parties that the mobile phone in question became dead/switched off within six months of its purchase i.e. within the warranty period. The plea of OP No.1 & 2 that the mobile phone in question is having some modification is not acceptable because there is no reason with the complainant to tamper with the same within the warranty period.   Besides this, OPs No.1 and 2 have failed to state in the written statement what type of alleged modification/tampering was carried out in the mobile phone.  Besides this, they have also miserably failed to place on record any convincing and reliable documentary evidence in the shape of the inspection report of the mobile phone in support of their plea regarding the alleged modification. It seems that OPs No.1 and 2 took such a vague and false plea just to wriggle out its responsibility and liability under the warranty period towards its customers.  It is a common practice, as of now days, of the Mobile Companies to deny service, within warranty period, to a common man/consumer by mentioning the tampering/modification of the mobile handset so that it could be ousted from warranty terms and they would earn by carrying out repairs on payment basis even within the warranty period.  OP No.1 & 2 have, thus, committed deficiency in service by not rendering the promised services within the warranty period to the complainant.
7.         In view of the above discussion, the present complaint deserves to be allowed and the same is accordingly allowed. OPs No.1 and 2  are directed as under;-

1. To refund Rs.65,145/- being the price of the mobile phone in question to the complainant.
2. To pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant
3. To pay Rs.7,500/- as costs of litigation.

8.         This order be complied with by OPs No.1 and 2, within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amount at Sr.Nos. (i) and (ii) above shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of this order till its actual payment besides litigation expenses.
9.         The complaint qua OP No.3 stands dismissed.
10.         Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced                                                             sd/-

11.01.2019                                              (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

sd/-

(RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER