Haryana

Karnal

CC/228/2021

S.K. Engineering Industries - Complainant(s)

Versus

Apple India Private Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Manjeet Kamboj

28 Jul 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                        Complaint No. 228 of 2021

                                                        Date of instt.20.04.2021

                                                        Date of Decision:28.07.2022

 

S.K. Engineering Industries c/o village Rattan Garh post office Karnal Kaithal Road Karnal through its partner.

 

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1.     Apple India Pvt. Ltd. no.24, 19^th floor, concord Tower, U.B. City, Vittal Malya Road, Bangluru, Karnataka-560001 (Manufacturer)

 

2.     Digicare Services Shop no.FF03 2^nd floor, Super Mall, sector 12, Part 1 opposite Income Tax Department Karnal Apple authorized service centre through its owner.

                                                                      …..Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.       

      Sh. Vineet Kaushik…….Member

      Dr. Rekha Chaudhary….Member

 

 Argued by: Shri Manjeet Kamboj, counsel for the complainant.

                    Shri Dheeraj Sachdeva, counsel for OP no.1.

                    OP no.2 exparte.

 

                    (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:   

                

                The complainant has filed the present complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that complainant purchased a mobile APPLE 1 phone 11 64 GB colour Black, vide IMEI no.359245670590544 on 30.11.2020 amounting to Rs.54900/- from the authorized dealer of Apple Company namely Invent at shop no.3 Dayal Tower Karnal, vide bill no.TUKRJ2022/688, with the warranty one year. The OP no.1 is the manufacturer of the said mobile sent and OP no.2 is the authorized service provider of Apple India. After the purchase of the said mobile, the complainant started to use the same as per guidelines of the OP and same worked only for some days, but after 2 months of purchase, complainant faced some problems in the mobile. The mobile started rebooting on its own and after sometimes it stop responding and due to the said defect, the complainant was unable to do any function of the mobile. Complainant contacted the OPs for the said defect and requested to get same be repaired. Then complainant approached the OP no.2, the service provider of Apple India in the month of February 2021 and told about the said defect that the auto off handing and call merge option not working and wifi not supporting. The official of the OP no.2 kept the mobile set and asked the complainant to come after two days. After two days, complainant approached the OP no.2 to take back his mobile but his mobile was not repaired by the OP no.2. Thereafter, on repeated request, OP no.2 handed over the mobile to the complainant with the assurance that now the unit has been repaired and complainant would not face any issue now. But it was surprised that the unit worked only for few days and the same was not repaired and same problem was occurred. However no job sheet was provided by the OP no.2. Then complainant again approached the OP no.2 and requested to repair the mobile, OP no.2 kept the mobile set and said than to come after two days. Complainant asked the OP no.2 to provide the job sheet for deposited of unit as last time also they did not issue the job sheet nor they repaired the unit and accordingly the unit got deposited vide job sheet no.HR2103190179 dated 19.03.2021. After 2 days, OP no.2 delivered the mobile set after repair, it is very surprisingly the mobile set work for only 7-10 days and there after the unit again creating the same problem. Complainant approached the OPs and requested either to replace the unit or to refund the price of the mobile as the same is not in working condition, but OPs flatly refused to listen to genuine request of complainant. OPs have failed to provide services to the complainant and have sold a defective unit and are not ready to resolve the problem or to replace the unit. In this way there is 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 issues a one year warranty on its products from the date of its purchase. The complainant purchased the mobile set in question on 30.11.2020 with the warranty of one year from its purchase. Complainant used the said mobile set successfully. It is denied that complainant approached or deposited its device with OP no.2 in the month of February, 2021. There is no such evidence of the complainant having visited the OP no.2. The complainant had submitted his iphone first time with the Apple Authorized Service Provider (AASP) of the OP no.1 i.e. OP no.2 on 19.03.2021, as he allegedly had some issued on his device. The OP no.2 inspected the device, as it was in warranty, they found no issues in it and returned the said iphone back to the complainant. The complainant was satisfied with the repair. Thereafter, there is no interaction between the complainant or the OPs, nor has the complainant approached any AASP too. The complainant is aware of the terms and conditions of the warranty which clearly states that free service/repair or replacement will be provided only if there in any such issue determined by the AASP. Despite being aware of the same, complainant is demanding for free replacement under warranty without even establishing any sort of damage/issue on the said device nor has it been identified by the OP1/OP2 or any AASP, which warrants it to be replaced under warranty. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP no.1. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied by the OP no.1 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             OP no.2 did not appear despite service and opted to be proceeded against exparte, vide order dated 09.03.2022 of this Commission.

4.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

5.             Learned counsel for complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, copy of bill/invoice Ex.C1, copy of job sheet Ex.C2 and closed the evidence on 31.05.2022 by suffering separate statement.

6.             On the other hand, learned counsel for OP no.1 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Sandeep Karakar Contracts Manager Ex.RW1/A, copy of warranty card Ex.R1, authority letter Ex.R2 and closed the evidence on 31.05.2022 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.             Learned counsel for complainant, while reiterating the contents of the complaint has vehemently argued that complainant purchased an iphone of the OP no.1 company, vide bill dated 30.11.2020 to the tune of Rs.54,900/- with the warranty of one year. After 2 months of its purchase said iphone has started creating problems such as rebooting in its own and after some time responding due to said defect. The complainant contacted to the OP no.2 i.e. service centre of the company and narrated the aforesaid problems. OP no.2 kept the iphone but did not success to rectify the defect after their several efforts and lastly complainant has prayed for allowing the complaint.

9.             Per contra, learned counsel for OP no.1, while reiterating the contents of the written version, has vehemently argued that complainant found some issues with his iphone and he approached the OP no.2 first time on 19.03.2021 with regard to some alleged issues on his iphone. OP no.2 who is the authorized service centre of OP no.1 inspected the said iphone and found no issue in it.  Thereafter, there is no interaction between the complainant and the OP. The complainant alleges that he approached the OP no.2 in February, 2021 but in this regard there is no service report generated by the OP no.2. Thereafter, complainant never contacted the OP no.2 for any sort of issues in the device and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

10.           As per version of the complainant that he purchased a mobile APPLE 1 phone 11 64 GB from the  authorized dealer of the OP no.1 (manufacturer) to the tune of Rs.54,900/-. After two months of its purchase, mobile set created problem and he approached the OP no.2 i.e. service centre of the company to rectify the said defect, but OP failed to rectify the defect after its several efforts.

11.           Before going into the merits of the case, firstly we decide whether complainant falls under the definition of ‘consumer’ or not as defined in the Consumer Protection Act, 2019?

12.           The definition of consumer is defined in Section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 which is reproduced as under:-

(7) “Consumer” means any person who-

(i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promise or partly paid and partly promises, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose.” or

(ii)  hires or avails of  any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who(hires or avails of) the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purposes.

Explanation- For the purposes of this clause-

(a) the expression “commercial purpose” does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self employment.”

(b) the expressions “buys any goods” and “hires or avails any services” include offline or online transactions through electronic means or by teleshopping or direct selling or multi-level marketing;

 

13.           On perusal of the abovesaid definition, complainant does not fall under the definition of consumer, as the present complaint has been filed by S.K. Engineering Industries. It has not been proved on record in what capacity the complainant has filed this complainant under the name of the said firm. There is nothing on file to prove that the complainant is the proprietor of or partner in the said firm. Thus, in view of the above, the complainant does not come under the definition of consumer. Therefore, the present complaint is devoid of any merits and deserves to be dismissed.

14.           Thus, in view of the above, we dismiss the present complaint. No order as to costs. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Dated: 28.07.2022

                                                                President,

                                                      District Consumer Disputes

                                                      Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

 

             (Vineet Kaushik)     (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary) 

                   Member                  Member