Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/5/2020

Mr.AnantGoyal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Apple India Private Limited,Rep by its Director - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.S.Elambharathi

18 Jan 2024

ORDER

Complaint presented on  :05.11.2019    Date of disposal            :18.01.2024

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (NORTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, T.N.P.S.C. Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 600 003.

 

PRESENT: THIRU. G. VINOBHA, M.A., B.L.           : PRESIDENT

                                         TMT. KAVITHA KANNAN, M.E.,         : MEMBER-I

                                         THIRU V. RAMAMURTHY, B.A., B.L., PGDLA : MEMBER-II

 

C.C. No.05/2020

           DATED THIS THURSDAY THE 18^th  DAY OF JANUARY 2024

                                

Mr.Anant Goyal,

S/o.Ashok Goyal,

No.G-501, Akshaya metropolis,

Maraimalai Nagar,

Kanchipuram District

                                                                                             …..Complainant

..Vs..

 

1. Apple India Pvt.Ltd

Rep by its Director

No.24, 19^th Floor, Concorde Tower-C

UB-City Vittal Mallya Road,

Bangalore-560 001,

•  

 

2.Ample Technologies Pvt.Ltd

Rep by its Director

Ampa Skywalk, No.101A, 1^st Floor,

1 Nelson Manickam Road, Aminjikarai,

• .....Opposite Parties

 

 

Counsel for Complainant                           : M/s.S.Elambharathi

Counsel for  1^st Opposite party                  : M/s.J.Anand

Counsel for  2^nd  Opposite party                 : Exparte

 

 

ORDER

TMT. KAVITHA KANNAN, M.E., MEMBER-I

 

          This complaint has been filed as against the opposite parties under section 12 of the consumer protection act 1986, praying to direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony, to remove the defects in the device free of cost, to replace the device with new one and/or to return the price for purchasing the device and to pay Rs.2,00,000/- towards deficiency of service and negligence of the opposite parties.

 

1.Complaint in Brief

The complainant had purchased the I phone X(10) 256 GB-Space Grey Apple Mobile Phone along with Screen Guard, Back Case and Memory Card for Rs.1,06,050/- (Rupees One Lakh Six Thousand and Fifty Only) at Poorvika Mobiles Pvt Ltd on 13.11.2017 with the Tax Invoice Number GSI/VEMA/4268 and with the One year Warranty for the device which ended November 2018 and on 08.11.2018 paid Rs.4,500/- to 2^nd opposite party for extended warranty with reference to Agreement Number 325038806867 for the aforesaid device which would ends 12.11.2019 and on 04.03.2019 the complainant approached the 2^nd opposite party for the problem of green lines in display issue which was rectified by replacing the glass screen under warranty and on 28.03.2019 the complainant approached 2^nd opposite party with face ID detection problem which could not be rectified by 2^nd opposite party and the device was sent to 1^st opposite party having location at Bangalore and 2 days after the staff of the 2^nd opposite party inform that the device has undergone some modification outside the apple care and it cannot be rectify under warranty and requested the complainant to Rs.58,000/- for solving the problem thereafter the complainant called the customer care service of the 1^st opposite party and 2 days after the complainant was informed again to pay Rs.58000/- and further according to the complainant he has not given the device for repair to any 3^rd party except the 2^nd opposite party and therefore the complainant issued on 15.04.2019 a legal notice for which on 21.09.2019  the 1^st opposite party gave a reply reiterating that the said device underwent unauthorized service hence invalidates the warranty of the said iphone and hence the complainant alleged negligence and deficiency in service against the opposite parties and claimed Rs.1lakh as compensation for mental agony and for removal of defects free of cost and to direct the opposite parties to replace the device with a new one or to return the price paid for the device and also for compensation for damages and inconvenience and deficiency in service. Hence the complaint.    

02. WRITTEN VERSION OF OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

The 1st opposite party defended that the complainant purchased an Iphone on  13-11-2017 and it as a matter of record. But denies that the complainant’s iPhone had various problems since the date of purchase as the said device was brought for first service only on 04-03-2019 since its purchase on 13-11-2017 and its pertinent to note the device worked without any defects for 15 months from date of purchase. The 1st opposite party further defended the complaint stating that the device when brought to the 2nd opposite party on 28-03-2019 had issues with face detection and the same was informed to the complainant and was also advised that the device had to be sent to the 1st opposite party for further analysis while the 1st opposite party customer care informed that the device had undergone unauthorized modification and hence not covered for service under warranty. The 1st opposite party further defended that the 2nd opposite party’s decision remains unchanged as the device was not fit for warranty service and further alleged that the 2nd opposite party’s diagnosis was a semi automatic process and involved usage of highly technical instruments which were authorized by the 1st opposite party. The 1st opposite party alleged that the device was tampered and hence the complainant’s Iphone was not eligible for service under warranty under the 1st opposite party Terms of Warranty. And hence contends that neither was the said device eligible for warrantied service nor was the complainant entitled for any compensation as alleged in the complaint and hence prays for dismissal of the complaint and denied deficiency in service.

Points for consideration

 

1. Whether there is Negligence and Deficiency of service on the opposite parties?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs, if so to what extent?

 

The complainant had filed, proof affidavit, written arguments and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A9 were marked on his side.The 1^st opposite party had filed written version, proof affidavit, written arguments and documents Ex.B1 to B3 were marked. The 2^nd opposite party remained Exparte.

Point No:1

1)As per complaint, the complainant had purchased an Iphone X(10) 256GB -Space Grey  Apple Mobile phone along with Screen Guard, back Case and Memory Card manufactured by 1st Opposite party, paying a sum of Rs.1,06,050/-. The complainant had further stated that a sum of Rs.4500/- was paid on 08-11-2018 for the purpose of extending the warranty of the device vide reference agreement no.-325038806867 and hence the said device was covered with warranty till 12-11-2019. The complainant alleges that the said device had various defects from the date of purchase. On 04-03-2019 the complainant had approached the 2nd Opposite party with a complaint of “Green Line in Display” and the same was rectified by the 2nd Opposite party by replacing the Glass screen under warranty and a service report reading “Screen display has been replaced” was issued by the 2nd opposite party. It is also further stated by the complainant that on 28-03-2019 the complainant’s iPhone’s Face Identification feature was not working and the same was submitted to the 2nd opposite party under Ref no. IMA 1826097. The iPhone was rebooted but the 2nd opposite party was unable to repair the device and the same was informed to the complainant and hence the said device was sent to Bangalore for further diagnosis to the 1st opposite party’s senior level technician. The complainant had been informed by the 2nd opposite party after a span of 2 days that the said device seemed to have been modified outside by a third party and hence cannot be repaired under warranty and there was a demand of Rs.58,000/- by the 2nd opposite party for rectification of defects. The complainant had further alleged that on approaching the 1st opposite party customer care the complainant conveyed his grievances to one Ms.Fahrin who replied after 2 days with the same facts that it would cost Rs.58,000/ for rectification of defects . The complainant had further alleged that when he enquired about the issue diagnosed by the senior technician and how he identified that the device had undergone modification outside Apple care, he was informed as : ”No explanation will be provided since it is the privacy policy of Apple India Private Limited”. The complainant submits that As per terms and conditions of the 2nd opposite party and also Apple Care Policy of the 1st opposite party, service under warranty will be refused if the service has been performed by anyone who is not a representative of Apple or any unauthorized service provider or if an unauthorized modification done to the device. The complainant vehemently submits that from 04-03-2019 the date of first service done on the device by the 2nd opposite party the complainant had not given the device to any service provider for any modification and hence denies the fact that the device underwent an unauthorized service.

2) The complainant also alleged that as per RAF 1826097 dated 01-04-2019 Diagnostic details, had been, mentioned as issue with use of Iphone “ but had not briefed about the nature of the issue and returned the device stating that the device was ineligible for service under warranty while his device was still under warranty and any hardware problem was covered under warranty. The complainant alleges that on considering the fact that the device was modified by a unauthorized service person means that the first service done by the 2nd opposite party falls outside Apple Care and relates to two reasons viz:- either a duplicate screen display glass not manufactured by Apple could have been placed or while doing repair the internal circuit of the device may have been damaged or may not have been properly fixed, upon completion of the repair. And hence alleged that the 2nd opposite party had failed to take enough care while doing first service and has also denied warranty service for high quality parts which was well within the knowledge of the 1st opposite party. Hence filing of the complaint.

 3) On the other hand, the 1st opposite party defended that the  complainant purchased an Iphone on  13-11-2017 and it as a matter of record. But denies that the complainant’s iPhone had various problems since the date of purchase as the said device was brought for first service only on 04-03-2019 since its purchase on 13-11-2017 and its pertinent to note the device worked without any defects for 15 months from date of purchase. The 1st opposite party further defended the complaint stating that the device when brought to the 2nd opposite party on 28-03-2019 had issues with face detection and the same was informed to the complainant and was also advised that the device had to be sent to the 1st opposite party for further analysis while the 1st opposite party customer care informed that the device had undergone unauthorized modification and hence not covered for service under warranty. The 1st opposite party further defended that the 2nd opposite party’s decision remains unchanged as the device was not fit for warranty service and further alleged that the 2nd opposite party’s diagnosis was a semi automatic process and involved usage of highly technical instruments which were authorized by the 1st opposite party. The 1st opposite party alleged that the device was tampered and hence the complainant’s Iphone was not eligible for service under warranty under the 1st opposite party Terms of Warranty. And hence contends that neither was the said device eligible for warrantied service nor was the complainant entitled for any compensation as alleged in the complaint and hence prays for dismissal of the complaint and denied deficiency in service.

4) Perused documents, and after careful reading of the averments by both the parties, there is no dispute that the complainant spent Rs.1,06,050/- and  purchased the Iphone device and the same is evident vide Invoice No.GSI/VEMA/4268 dated 13/11/2017 found in ExA1. As per ExA2 which was sent by the 1st opposite party, it is pertinent to note that the iPhone was registered for an extended warranty till 12-11-2019 under Agreement No.325038806867. Wherein it is stated that the “Apple Protection plan for iPhone extends service and support coverage to 2 years from the purchase date of the device”. It is found from Ex.A3 that on 08.11.2018 the complainant approached the 2^nd opposite party and it was found that the device were usage scratches and the complainant avail service which is chargeable. As per ExA4 the service report under Ref no.IMA 1814297 given by the 2nd opposite party the said iPhone had an issue of “multi touch and greenish lines on display”, subsequently the iPhone was restored with latest version and “Unable to run Apple Diagnostics test due to Multi touch Issue, Multi touch not responding and lines on display “ and hence the display was replaced under warranty evident vide service report dated 04-03-2019. From this exhibit it is observed that the iphone had suffered a problem of Multi-touch issue and same could not be rectified using Apple Diagnostics test and only manual testing was done and defects rectified and the complainant has duly approved the same. However, as per Ex.A5 the said iPhone was submitted to the 2nd Opposite party on 28-03-2019 with complaints of “ Unable to verify liquid traces need to check internal conditions”. And vide ExA6 the said iPhone was returned by the 2nd opposite party to the complainant on 01-04-2019 with a note that “Checked the device manually by adding face ID, found faceID not detecting. Tried with different face Id found unable add face ID. Issue with user iPhone. Hence, iPhone sent to repair centre and they found the modification on the device and hence ineligible for warranty service. And thereby returned the same to the customer”. As per ExB1 the photograph of the said iPhone device the internal part of the iPhone has been tampered. Dispute arises when the complainant was informed that his phone was handled by an unauthorized service by the 2nd opposite party in concurrence with the 1st opposite party. After careful perusal of both side averments and documents this commission is of the considered opinion that the device was brought for service only on 04-03-2018 after almost 15 months from date of purchase. Had the device suffered due to several issues since date of purchase, the complainant might have approached the 2nd opposite party well in advance, if there was any defect in the device earlier but had approached the 2nd opposite party after an extensive usage period which shows that the there was no manufacturing defect in the device. Even when submitted for 1st service as per ExA3 had the device suffered due to face ID detection but neither the complainant have mentioned the same on the service request nor the 2nd opposite party had briefed it in the service report, the 2nd opposite party had taken efforts to rectify the green line display issue and after running several test runs had replaced the iPhone display since the iPhone was under warranty. However the complainant had approached the 2nd opposite party only on 28-03-2019 after 24 days of usage. Had the said iPhone suffered any defect after the first service of the 2nd opposite party due to tampering or any unauthorized handling by the 2nd opposite party the said device would not have worked for next 24 days and even as per 1st service report there is no mention of internal repairs carried out by the 2nd opposite party and hence there is no proof of 2nd opposite party’s mishandling the device as alleged by complainant. Regarding the 1st opposite party version that the device underwent unauthorized service. As per ExB1 the device shows it was tampered before it was handed over to the opposite party for internal service. Since as per Terms and conditions of the 1st opposite party Section 4.1. Apple may restrict service to the Covered Equipment’s original country of purchase, The plan does not apply to,(iii) Covered equipment  with a serial number that has been altered, defaced or removed , or has been modified to alter its functionality or capability without the written permission of the manufacturer “ .The 1st opposite party has relied upon the following decisions 1)the Honble Supreme Court’s decision in “CA No.8701 of 1997 Ravneet singh vs KLM royal Dutch Airline and others”, 2)”Consumer Unity and Trust Society vs The Chairman and managing director ,Bank of Baroda”3)CA No.8072-8073 of 2009 -general motors India pvt ltd vs Ashok Ramnik lal tolat and another” 4)Honble NCDRC decision in RP No.2670 of 2010-Kumari Namrata Singh Vs manager, Indus and another”, 5)“Sushila Automobiles Pvt.Ltd vs Birendra Narain prasad and others”,”6)RP No.2309 of 2008 Tata Motors vs Deepak Goyal and others” and 7) SCDRC Uttarkhand decision in “FA No.104 of 2011 MAnager,Ashutosh Goyan vs Ashok Bhatt and another” and also 8)Decision in CC 688 of 2021 Guruvinder Singh vs apple india private limited UT, Chandigarrah 9)RP.374 and 375 of 2005 classic automobiles vs lila Nandh mishra and others NCDRC. From the above said facts it is clear that the device suffered no defects and was working without any defect for almost one year and hence without adducing any exparte evidence the complainant is not entitled to seek for replacement of the device with a new iphone nor he is entitled for refund of the cost of the device as clamied by him. The complainant failed to prove the negligence and deficiency in service on the part of 2^nd opposite party in not rectifying the defect properly at the time of service on 04.03.2019 further the complainant failed to edatabnlish that the Face ID problem occurred only due to the negligence of the 2^nd opposite party. As already pointed oyut the phone was working without any problem from 04.03.2019 to 28.03.2019 and hence there is every possibility for the occurrence of face ID pronlem due to the handling of device by any 3^rd party service centre as alleged by the 1^st opposite party and hence the contention of the complainant that he has not given the device to any 3^rd party service center is found to be a false one and hence the 2^nd opposite party is justified in asking for Rs.58000/- towards rectifying the problem and hence the complainant’s device is not eligible for service under warranty by the opposite Parties. The onus lies on the complainant to prove that there is deficiency of service on the opposite parties but the complainant failed to prove the same further having done the service under warranty on 04.03.2019 there is no necessity for the 2^nd opposite party to refuse service under warranty on 28.03.2019 willfully with any malafide intention. From the aforesaid facts it is found that the complainant failed to prove the alleged deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Point.No1 is answered accordingly.

 

Point No. 2

Based on findings to Point No. 1 there is no deficiency of service on the opposite parties. Hence the device is not eligible for service under warranty and the complainant is not entitled for purchase cost or for replacement of the device with a new one or for rectification of defects free of cost and for compensations as prayed in the complaint.

 

In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No cost.

 

Dictated by Member-I to the Steno-Typist taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 18^th January 2024.

 

MEMBER I                                  MEMBER – II                           PRESIDENT

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

 

Ex.A1	13.11.2017	Invoice 2 in numbers
Ex.A2	08.11.2018	Apple Care Protection plan certificate with acknowledgement
Ex.A3	08.11.2018	Service
Ex.A4	04.03.2019	Service
Ex.A5	28.03.2019	Repair Acceptance Plan
Ex.A6	01.04.2019	E-mail
Ex.A7	15.04.2019	Legal Notice issued to opposite parties
Ex.A8	21.04.2019	Reply
Ex.A9		Apple Care protection plan for Iphone

 

 

 

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE  OPPOSITE PARTY:

 

Ex.B1		Annexure A:Photograph of the iphone having unauthorized modification.
Ex.B2		Annexure B:Apple terms of Warranty
Ex.B3		Letter of Authorisation

 

 

MEMBER – I                         MEMBER – II                       PRESIDENT