Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/401/2018

Varun Bhardwaj - Complainant(s)

Versus

Apple India Private Ltd. 19 Floor, Concorde Tower C, U.B. City No.24, Vittal Malya Road, Banglore 56 - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

17 Jan 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	401/2018
Date of Institution	:	17.07.2018
Date of Decision	:	17.01.2019

 

                                       

                                               

Varun Bhardwaj aged 25 years son of Sh.Arun Kumar r/o H.No.3220, Sector 37-D, Chandigarh.

                                ...  Complainant.

Versus

1.     Apple India Private Ltd., 19 Floor, Concorde Tower C, UB City No.24, Vittal Mallya Road, Bangalore-560001 through its Managing Director.

 

2.     The Managing Director, Apple India Private Ltd., 19 Floor, Concorde Tower C, UB City No.24, Vittal Mallya Road, Bangalore-560001.

 

3.     F-1-Info Solutions & Services Pvt. Ltd., through its Manager, First Floor, SCO No.274, Sector 32-D, Chandigarh

 

4.     The Manager, F-1-Info Solutions & Services Pvt. Ltd., First Floor, SCO No.274, Sector 32-D, Chandigarh

…. Opposite Parties.

 

BEFORE: SHRI RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

SHRI RAVINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

Argued by:     

Complainant in person.

Sh.Devinder Kumar, Advocate for OPs No.1 and 2.

Sh.G.S.Jagpal, Adv. Proxy for Sh.Pushpinder Kaushal, Advocate for OP Nos.3 & 4.

                          

 

PER RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

1.         Briefly stated, the complainant purchased iPhone X on 05.03.2018 for a sum of $1101.40 from Chicago, United States of America having international warranty of one year.  It has further been averred that in the first week of July, 2018, he was going from the Court building to the parking area and in the meantime, it started rain and the mobile phone lying in his pocket got wet in the rain only for 5-6 seconds before he reached to his car.  The mobile phone worked perfectly normal  for the next few days and suddenly on 08.07.2018, the same stopped working and he visited OPs No.3 and 4 on 09.07.2018 to get it repaired but they refused to repair the same on the ground that the same was not covered under the warranty as the same was having water marks near the receiver display and he has to pay Rs.48,000/- to get the same repaired.  It has further been averred that OPs No.1 and 2 have clearly mentioned that the iPhone X is water resistance and is having IP-67 rating and according to the IP-67 rating, the iPhone X can stay under water upto 1 metre for 30 minutes but OPs No.3 and  4 simply denied the same.  According to the complainant, in order to defeat the genuine claim, OPs No.3 and  4 gave wrong remarks that the water sensors were tampered but after protest they made handwritten remarks along with their seal on the job sheet that the water sensors were not triggered and returned the mobile phone to him.  It has further been averred that the advertisement was given by OPs No.1 and 2 just to attract and befool the innocent customers like him by misleading them.  According to the complainant, he is entitled for replacement of the mobile phone or in the alterative refund of its price.  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, OPs No.1 and 2 while admitting the factual matrix of the case have pleaded that the complainant had violated Clause (d) of the terms and conditions of the warranty policy.  It has further been pleaded that iPhone X is splash, water and dust resistant and the splash, water and dust resistant are not permanent and the resistance might decrease as a result of normal wear and use of the said iPhone X.  It has been denied that the iPhone X is water proof. It has further been pleaded that the complainant has not understood the difference between the water resistance and water proof.  Technically water resistant means the ability to resist the penetration of water to some degree but not entirely and waterproof means totally impervious to water or ability to ensure no water affects or enters it.   It has further been pleaded that since the mobile phone was out of warranty and as such he was offered out of warranty paid replacement to which he refused. The remaining allegations have been denied, being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on their part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint qua them has been made.
3.         In their separate written statement, OPs No.3 and 4 while admitting the factual matrix of the case have pleaded that the water resistance does not mean that the device be put into water for a longer period.  It has further been pleaded that in the job card it was mentioned that “liquid traces found near receiver display, flex cables, LCI found tampered, device physical condition categorized as liquid damage, exchange price offered to customer, customer refused for quoted exchange price device returned as it is”.  It has further been pleaded that the iPhone did not fall under the warranty policy of OPs No.1 and 2 The remaining allegations have been denied, being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on their part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint qua them has been made.
4.         The complainant filed rejoinder to the written reply of OPs No.1 and 2 controverting their stand and reiterating his own.
5.         We have heard the complainant in person, learned counsel for the OPs and have gone through the documents on record.
6.         Admittedly, the complainant purchased the mobile phone make iPhone X, IP 67 rating, having warranty of one year.   It is also an admitted fact between the parties that the mobile phone in question stopped working during the warranty period. 
7.         The opposite parties have relied upon clause 3 of the warranty terms to state that the mobile phone is not covered under warranty. The said clause 3 of the international warranty terms reads as under :-

“(d) to damage caused by accident, abuse, misuse, fire, liquid contact, earthquake or other external cause”

There is no dispute with regard to the above condition in the warranty terms.  However, what cannot be lost sight of is the fact that the mobile phone in question, purchased by the complainant, was proclaimed to be water resistance.  The complainant has drawn our attention to para 7 of the preliminary objections of OPs No.1 and 2, the relevant para reads as under:

“So with IP 67 rating, the new iPhones have the highest dust protection rating and the second highest level of water protection, which is rated to be “protected from immersion in water with upto a depth of 1 meter for a period upto 30 minutes.”

We are of the view that if the mobile phone was proclaimed to be water resistant; submerged under water for 30 minutes then it should have certainly withstood the test of rains.  It is not the case of the opposite parties that the mobile phone was kept submerged in the water for more than the said time period.  As such reference to Clause 3 of the warranty policy is of no help to the opposite parties and they were duty bound to repair the mobile phone, free of cost, as the same was well within the warranty period but they did not do so.  

8.         It will not be out of place to mention here that the complainant had purchased the mobile phone after spending hefty amount from his pocket but due to the acts of the OPs, he was deprived of its use and pleasures.  Under the compelled circumstances, the complainant had to purchase a new mobile phone vide invoice dated 19.08.2018 for Rs.35000/-, a copy of which is attached with the replication.   In this view of the matter, we are of the considered view that no purpose would be served by directing the OPs to effect the repairs on the mobile phone in question.  The aforesaid acts on the part of the OPs certainly amount to deficiency in service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. 
9.         In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the present complaint deserves to be allowed. The same is accordingly allowed. The OPs are directed as under :-
   1. To refund the invoice value of the mobile phone in question i.e. $1101.40 in Indian currency to the complainant.
   2. To pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant
   3. To pay Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation. 
10.         This order be complied with by the OPs, within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amounts at Sr.No.(i)&(ii) above shall carry interest @9% per annum from the date of this order till actual payment besides payment of litigation costs.
11.         Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Sd/-                 sd/-                         sd/-

Announced	[RAVINDER SINGH]	[RAJAN DEWAN]	(PRITI MALHOTRA)
17/01/2019	MEMBER	PRESIDENT	MEMBER