Delhi

New Delhi

CC/539/2015

Gaurav Ahuja - Complainant(s)

Versus

Apple India Private Limited & Ors - Opp.Party(s)

05 Feb 2020

ORDER

 

 

   CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI (DISTT. NEW DELHI),

‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN,

I.P.ESTATE, NEW DELHI-110002.

 

Case No.CC. 539 /2015                                                               Dated:

In the matter of:

      Gaurav Ahuja

      S/o Sh. T.R. Ahuja

     R/o J-13/9, Rajori Garden,

       New Delhi                

……..COMPLAINANT

 

VERSUS

1.  Apple India Pvt. Ltd.

           19^th Floor Concorde Tower C

UB City no. 24

Vittal Malta Road, Bangalore-560001

     Through its Authorized Representative                          ……OPPOSITE PARTY No. 1

 

2.   Future World Retail India Pvt. Ltd.

G-54, Outer Circle, Connaught Place

New Delhi-110001 (Service Centre)

            Through its Authorized Representative                            ……OPPOSITE PARTY No. 2

 

3.      Sargam India Electronics Pvt. Ltd.

51/2, Desh Bandhu Gupta Road,

Opp. Khalsa Collage,

Karol Bagh.

New Delhi-110005

Through its Authorized Representative                                ……OPPOSITE PARTY No. 3

 

ARUN KUMAR ARYA-PRESIDENT

 ORDER

The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OPs under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  The brief facts as alleged in the complaint are that the complainants purchased mobile phone- Apple-I Phone 6 having IMEI no. 356984062968370 on 11/02/2015 from the OP-3 for a sum of Rs. 61,500/- vide invoice no. SKB-08345. It is alleged that after some time of purchase the said mobile in question started giving trouble and it used to restart automatically and sometimes the screen turns blue beside this the mobile have the problem of flickering and heating also.

On 16/06/2015, the complainant approached to OP-2 for redressal of his grievance. He handed over the mobile in question to OP-2 for removing the above defects, the officials of OP-2 asked the complainant to come after 2-3 days as such the complainant visited OP-2 on 19/06/2015 and collected his deposited mobile,  OP-2 assured him that the mobile is OK.

It is further alleged by the complainant that after 15 minutes of receiving the mobile in question, the complainant found the same problems, therefore, the said mobile was again deposited with the OP-2 and complainant was asked to call after 3-4 days in this regard.

On 25-26 June, 2015 the OP-2 declined the warranty stating that it is a case of ‘UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS’.

The complainant again approached OP-2 and requested to rectify the defects as there is no question of ‘Unauthorised Access’  falsely claimed by the OP-2, but the OP-2 again narrated the same story and declined to rectify the defects.

Having find no other alternative, he sent the legal notice to all the OPs claiming to refund the cost of mobile in question. The OPs neither reply to the legal notice nor had refunded the cost of the mobile, hence this complaint.

Notices were issued to all the OPs, however, none  appeared on behalf of OP-1, therefore, it was ordered to be proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 10/03/2016.

OP-2 contested the complaint and filed written statement/ version denying all allegation leveled by the complainant. It is stated that the complainant visited to OP-2 on 16/06/2015 and had complained about restarting and heating problems it was thoroughly checked by OP-2 and had not found any issue like heating problem etc. However, the complainant once again insisted a thorough check up of the phone and accordingly the OP-2 took the iphone in question and forwarded to the Screening Center of OP-1.

As per the report of screening centre, It was found that one component of the iPhone in question was broken and had an unauthorized modification.

It is further stated that the iPhone 6 in question of the complainant had been unauthorized modified by the complainant and therefore it is outside warranty. Accordingly, as per the terms of the Apple i.e. OP-1 warranty conditions, the iPhone in question received from the complainant could not be repaired under warranty, as warranty does not extend to the Apple products which are damaged due to accident, abuse, misuse, liquid contact, fire, earthquake or any other external cause.

OP-3 filed its written statement and it is stated that warranty and service of the product is given by manufacturer and service provider, hence complainant is not entitled for any relief qua OP-3.

 All the parties have filed their evidence by way of affidavit.  

We have heard argument advance at the Bar and have perused the record.

Perusal of the file shows that the alleged handset in question was purchased  by the complainant on 11/02/2015. For the first time the complainant visited to OP-2 on 16/06/2015 i.e. within 4 months of the purchase of mobile in question from 19/06/2015 the handset in question is lying with OP-2.

The OP-2 deny the repairing of the mobile on the ground that the handset failed in screening test performed by OP-1. In the present case neither the OP-1 appear nor has contested the complaint and failed to place on record the substantiate evidence regarding the screening test.

In such a circumstances, we are incline to hold that the hand set in question which is under warranty is defective one and the non repairing of the same by OP-1 amounts to deficiency in services.

We, therefore, hold the OP-1 guilty of deficiency in service and direct it as under:

i).    Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.61,500/- along with interest @  9% p.a. from the date of institution of this complaint i.e.  07/09/2015 till payment.

ii)    Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation towards harassment, mental agony and pain which will also include the cost of litigation.

                                                                                                              

The order shall be complied within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of the order. If the said amount is not paid by the OP within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order, the same shall be recovered by the complainant along with simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of this order till recovery of the said amount. A copy each of this order each be sent to both parties free of cost by post. Orders be also sent to www.confonet.nic.in. File be consigned to record room.

 

Pronounced in open Forum on 05/02/2020.

 

 

(ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

PRESIDENT

(NIPUR CHANDNA)                                                                                       (H M VYAS)

       MEMBER                                                                                                    MEMBER