Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/1161/2019

Sandeep Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Apple India Private Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Adv. Tajinder Singh

17 Apr 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint  No	:	1161 of 2019
Date  of  Institution	:	09.12.2019
Date   of   Decision	:	17.04.2023

 

 

 

 

 

Sandeep Sharma son of Sh.Rakesh, resident of Ward No.7, Mandi Dabwali, District Sirsa.

            …..Complainant

Versus

1]  Apple India Private Limited, No.24, 19^th Floor, Concorde Tower-C, UB City, Vital Malya Road, Bangalore 560001 through its Managing Director/Manager

2]  F1 Info Solution & Services Pvt. Ltd., SCO 817-818, First Floor, Sector 22-A, Chandigarh through its Manager.

3]  M/s Guru Kirpa Telecom, 24, New Market, Timarpur, Delhi through is Proprietor/ Manager.

   ….. Opposite Parties

 

 

BEFORE:  MR.AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU,       PRESIDENT

                MR.B.M.SHARMA                 MEMBER

 

For Complainant : Sh.Tejinder Singh, Counsel of complainant

For OP(s)       : Sh.Devinder Kumar, Counsel of OP No.1

   OPs No.2 & 3 exparte

 

 

PER  B. M. SHARMA, MEMBER

        The case of the complainant precisely is that he purchased one iPhone SE 16gb Gold from OP NO.2 for an amount of Rs.25,000/- on 20.4.2017 vide bill Ann.C-1.  It is stated that the said iphone started giving problem from the very beginning as it was unexpectedly restarting on its own due to manufacturing defect in it. It was taken to OP Service Centre and it was replaced with new.  However the replaced iphone also started giving problem of software, its display goes blank and mic was also not working.  This was brought to the notice of OP Service Centre and then it was replaced with new iphone with assurance that it will not have any issue. 

        It is submitted that even in the replaced iphone, the complainant experienced overheating issue within 3-4 days. It was reported to OP No.1 but it did not take any step to resolve the issue.  Then a legal notice was sent to the OPs whereupon the complainant was asked to visit Service Centre.  The complainant then visited Service Centre and he has been told that there was some software defect in the phone which has been resolved and now there will be not issue in the phone.  It is pleaded that on 27.9.2019, while the complainant was using the iphone, the phone got so much heated that it gave electric shock to the complainant, so complainant threw it after getting affected from it.  It is also pleaded that the complainant saw grayish toxic gases coming out of the iphone and the phone was emitting very unpleasant smell out of it.  It is further pleaded that the phone turned black from the top and it was not turning On.  This incident was reported by the complainant to OPs on 30.9.2019 by sending email and he was suggested to visit Service Centre and told that he will have to pay Rs.23000/- in order to get the iphone replaced, whereas a new phone is costing Rs.16999/- with higher capacity.  It is asserted that the complainant has been harassed mentally and physically by OPs by supplying defective phone and also by not providing repair for overheating phone, which ultimately exploded and caused loss to the complainant.  Hence, this complaint has been preferred alleging the above said act & conduct of the OPs as gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  

 

        The OP No.1- Apple India Pvt. Ltd., has filed written version stating that the complainant purchased an iphone on 20.4.2017 having one year warranty expired on 19.4.2018.  It is stated that the complainant approached authorized service provider i.e. B2X of OP No.1 on 6.5.2017 with regard to some issues in his iphone. It is stated that the phone was inspected and as it was under warranty, it was replaced with a new iphone. The complainant subsequently approached another authorized service centre i.e. IVY Technology on 20.11.2017 with regard to some alleged issues in his iphone; the phone was inspected and being under warranty, it was replaced with a new iphone. Thereafter, the complainant approached authorized service centre of OP Company on 4.10.2019 alleging that he had some shocks from his iphone, but on inspection & check, no such issue was determined. It is pleaded that the complainant was offered standard Out of Warrant Service option as the warranty on the iphone had expired on 19.4.2018 and this has also been mentioned in the Service Report dated 4.10.2019, but the complainant declined and took his iphone back.  It is also pleaded that the damage to the complainant’s iphone occurred squarely as a result of complainant’s own negligence and fault. It is asserted that the complainant has not adduced any expert evidence that there was any manufacturing defect in the iphone.  It is also asserted that the complainant having damaged his new replaced iphone, now falsely alleging it to be old iphone as replacement, when it is out of warranty. Denying all other allegations and pleading nod deficiency in service, the OP No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

   

        The OPs No.2 & 3 did not turn up despite service of notice, hence they were proceeded exparte vide order dated 13.2.2020.

 

3]      Replication has also been filed by the complainant thereby controverting the assertions of OP NO.1 as made in its reply.

 

4]      Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

5]      We have heard the ld.Counsel for the contesting parties and have gone through the documents on record including written arguments.

 

6]      The grouse of the complainant mainly is that he has been supplied an old iphone as a replacement against new one by the OPs, which too did not function properly and on 27.9.2019, the iphone heated-up at its own and became inoperative. It is stated that when the complainant took the defective phone to service centre of OPs, they gave estimate of repair whereas it should have been replaced by the OPs.

 

7]      The complainant admittedly purchased the iphone from OP No.3 on 20.4.2017, which was replaced by the OPs in that very year-2017 free of cost under warranty. The complainant has not disputed that the iphone in question was carrying warranty of one year, which certainly had expired in the year 2018.

 

8]      The thorough perusal of the file reveals that there is no job sheet or repair order from the side of complainant to prove that the iphone was taken for repairs on account of any defect during the period since 2017 till Sept., 2019.  It is shows that the iphone worked properly from the year 2017 till Sept., 2019 when it was taken to the OP Service Centre (Ann.C-3) for repair. Thus it cannot be held, in the absence of any expert opinion that the iphone in question was suffering from manufacturing defect, especially when it was not reported with any fault or repair for 2 years.  The demand of repair cost from the complainant seems to be justified as the iphone is already out of warranty as on 4.10.2019 when it was taken to OP Service Centre for repair. Therefore, no deficiency in service is attributed towards the OPs. 

 

9]      Taking into consideration the above discussion & findings, we are of the opinion that no deficiency in service is made out against the OPs. Therefore, the present complaint stands dismissed being without merit.  No order as to costs.

         Certified copy of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. After compliance, file be consigned to record room.

Announced

17^th April, 2023             

                                                                              SD/-

 (AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(B.M.SHARMA)

MEMBER