Haryana

Ambala

CC/378/2022

DHARAM SINGH. - Complainant(s)

Versus

APPLE INDIA PVT LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

IN PERSON

12 Sep 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

Complaint case no.	:	378 of 2022
Date of Institution	:	10.10.2022
Date of decision	:	12.09.2023

Dharam Singh Aged 41 years S/o Sh. Ajaib Singh R/o Village Humayupur, P.O. Materi Shekhan, Distt. Ambala.

……. Complainant

Versus

1. Apple India Pvt. Ltd., 19th Floor, Concorde Tower-C, UB City, No 24, Vittal Mallya Road, Bangalore-560001, Karnataka, through its Authorized Signatory.
2. Digicare Services, Shop No.12, First Floor, Galaxy Mall, Sector-7, HUDA, Ambala City, through its Authorized Signatory.                                               

….…. Opposite Parties

Before:                Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                             Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member,

                 Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.           

 

Present:             Complainant in person.

                    Shri Naresh Sharma, Advocate, counsel for the OP No.1.

                    Shri Devki Nandan Sharma, Advocate, counsel for the OP No.2.

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                   Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) praying for issuance of following directions to them:-

1. To refund $ 1069 (dollars), (approximately Rs.81000/-, at that time), alongwith interest @ 12% from the date of purchase or to replace the handset.
2. To pay Rs.50,000/- on account of loss of profession, mental harassment and agony suffered by the complainant;
3. To pay Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses.

OR

Grant any other relief which this Hon’ble Commission may deem fit.

 

2.           Brief facts of the case are that the complainant is an advocate by profession and he purchased one Apple IPHONE 13 Pro mobile handset (product of O.P.No.1) having serial no.DN69Q3JGW7 and IMEI No.358823345146669 for a sum $ 1069/- (Rs.81000/-) from Apple The Fashion Mall At Keystone (U.S.A.) on 11.12.2021 vide bill Annexure-C-1. OP No.2 is service center of the said mobile and the hand set was having a warranty period of 12 months. The said handset stopped working properly from the month of September 2022 as the software version of the same was updated to 16 and device showed problem of hanging while using default apps; problem in charging connector, heat up, display. Thereafter, the complainant immediately reported the matter to OP No.2 who prepared a job card no. HR220927YN0030 dated 27.09.2022 and had collected the said handset for replacing the same free of cost as it was in warranty period as per the job sheet but after some time it returned the said handset on 07.10.2022 with the vague allegation that the said handset has been got dead and display can't be repair with the remarks that “cause of device in dead condition we can't repair only display, whole unit need to be replaced exchange cost 65009, return to consumer". The complainant asked the OPs to replace the said handset as it was in warrant when it suffered defects but they declined the genuine request of the complainant. Hence this complaint.
3.           Upon notice, OP No.1, appeared and filed written version raised preliminary objection with regard to maintainability etc.  On merits, it is stated that the mobile handset in question was physically/accidently damaged by the complainant before visiting OP No.2 and therefore it was not covered under warranty period, though the defect occurred therein during one year of its purchase. Thus, when on inspection it was found by OP No.2 that the mobile handset was not working owing to accidental damage, therefore, OP No.2 informed the complainant about cost of replacement of entire product, which fact is evident from service report dated 07.10.2022.  Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by the OP No.1 and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.
4.           Upon notice, OP No.2 appeared and filed written version wherein it raised preliminary objections to the effect that the complainant does not fall within the scope of definition of a "consumer"; the complaint is abuse of process of law etc. On merits, it has been stated that there is no negligence on the part of OP No.2 because it was providing only repair services to the complainant. Brochure containing terms and conditions of the warranty clearly provided that the mobile handset should be repaired free of cost only in case it is not damaged due to accident, negligence, misuse etc. On diagnosis, it was informed to the complainant that the mobile handset stood out of warranty due to accidental/liquid damage and that the repair can only be made on chargeable basis. The complainant thereafter refused to avail the repair services on payment basis. Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by the OP No.2 and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint with exemplary costs.
5.           Complainant tendered his own affidavit as Annexure CA and affidavit of Shri Sukhwinder Singh, proprietor Sukh Mobile Repair (GSTIN No.06FRIPS2517E1ZR), Shop No.4, Malik Market, Jalbera Road, Ambala City as Annexure CB alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to C-5 and closed the evidence on  behalf of the complainant. Learned counsel for the OP No.1 tendered affidavit of Sandeep Karmakar son of Late Shambhu Karmakar, C/o Apple India Private Limited, 19^th Floor, Concorde Tower-C, UB City No.24, Vittal Mallya Road, Bengaluru-560001 as Annexure OP-/1A alongwith documents as Annexure OP-1/1 to OP-1/4 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.1. Learned counsel for the OP No.2 tendered affidavit of Poonam D/o Shri Vishwamitra Lamba, aged about 24 years, having its office at Manager, Qdigi Services Limited, Authorized Service Center Shop No.12, First Floor, Galaxy Mall, Sector-7, HUDA, Ambala City as Annexure OP-W2/1 alongwith documents Annexure RW-2/1 to RW-2/2 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.2.
6.           We have heard the complainant and learned counsel for the OPs no.1 and 2 and have carefully gone through the case file and also gone through the written arguments filed by the learned counsel for the OP No.1
7.           Complainant submitted that by neither rectifying the defective mobile handset nor replacing the same with a new one nor refunding the price of the same, despite the fact that the same became defective during warranty period. OPs no.1 and 2 are deficient in providing service and adopted unfair trade practice.
8.           On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP no.1 submitted that  because the mobile handset was not suffering from any manufacturing defect,  whereas on the other hand, it was improperly and carelessly handled by the complainant as a result of which its screen was damaged which fact was reported by OP No.2 at the time of taking over the said mobile handset for repairs, therefore the complainant was not entitled to get free repairs or its replacement, as per terms and conditions of the warranty.  
9.           Learned counsel for OP No.2 also submitted that for any physical damaged caused to the mobile handset, the complainant was not entitled to get it repaired free of cost. The fact with regard to damaged screen was mentioned in the job card at the time of taking over mobile handset from the complainant, which fact also stood mentioned in the affidavit of one Sukhwinder Singh, Proprietor –Sukh Mobile Repair, Annexure C-B filed by the complainant, by way of evidence. He further submitted that because the mobile handset was to be repaired on payment basis, as per terms and conditions of the warranty, the complainant refused to get it repaired and took  it back and then filed this complaint .
10.           The moot question which falls for consideration before us is as to whether, the complainant is entitled to get back refund of the  amount paid by him towards the mobile handset in question or not. It may be stated here that admittedly the screen of the mobile handset which was landed by the complainant with OP No.2 i.e. service centre was found damaged, as is reported in the repair acceptance form dated 27.09.2022, Annexure R-W2/2. Importantly, this form is signed by the complainant also.  Thus, it is proved on record that screen of the mobile handset was found damaged when it was landed for repairs with OP No.2. Therefore, in these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the mobile handset with damaged screen was not covered under the warranty, because it was clearly mentioned in the warranty booklet, Annexure R-W2/1 that damage caused to the mobile handset by misuse or cosmetic damage or accidental damage will not be covered under warranty.
11.           To prove his case that the screen of mobile handset was damaged due to high heating while charging, the complainant has placed on record an affidavit of one Sukhwinder Singh, Proprietor–Sukh Mobile Repair, Annexure C-B alongwith his certificate and job sheet dated 19.01.2023, Annexure C-4 wherein the said Sukhwinder Singh has opined that the damage to the screen could be due to high heating. However, nothing has been placed on record to prove that Sukhwinder Singh was qualified enough to give any opinion/expert report qua the defect in the mobile handset in question i.e of Apple Company. Whereas in the Repair Acceptance Form dated 27.09.2022, Annexure RW2/2, issued by OP No.2, it is categorically mentioned that the screen of the mobile handset was damaged when it was handed over for repairs. This fact is not disputed and infact it is an admitted fact as mentioned in Annexure C-B also, as such, we are of the considered view that the said mobile handset was not covered under the warranty period and therefore there was no deficiency in rendering service or negligence on the part of the OPs in neither replacing the same nor rectifying the defects therein, free of cost nor refunding the price thereof by OP No.1. However, in the interest of justice, the complainant is at liberty to get the mobile handset in question repaired from OP No.2 on payment basis, if he wishes so.
12.           For the reasons recorded above, this complaint stands dismissed being, with no order as to costs. Certified copy of the order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.          

Announced:- 12.09.2023

 

(Vinod Kumar Sharma)	(Ruby Sharma)	(Neena Sandhu)
Member	Member	President