Hemant Gulati filed a consumer case on 05 Mar 2019 against Apple India Pvt Ltd. in the New Delhi Consumer Court. The case no is CC/768/2015 and the judgment uploaded on 18 Mar 2019.
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI
(DISTT. NEW DELHI), ‘M’ BLOCK, 1STFLOOR,
VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P.ESTATE,
NEW DELHI-110002.
CC. No./768/2015 Dated:
In the matter of:-
Sh. Hemant Gulati
S/o Sh. V.K. Gulati
F-60, Bhagat Singh Market
New Delhi-110001 …..Complainant
Versus
19th floor, Concorde Tower CUB
Vittal Malta Road
Bangalore-560001
India .…… Opposite Party no. 1
(Authorized Service Center of Apple Mobiles)
BG-07, Ground Floor, Ansal Plaza, HUDCO Place,
Khel Gaon Marg, New Delhi-110049.
.…… Opposite Party no. 2
(Authorized Service Center of Apple Mobiles)
N-9, Outer Circle, Connaught Place
New Delhi-110001
.…… Opposite Party no. 3
(Authorized Service Center of Apple Mobiles)
G-54, Radial Road no. 2, Connaught Place
New Delhi-110001
.…… Opposite Party no. 4
ORDER
PRESIDENT- ARUN KUMAR ARYA
The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OPs under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The facts as alleged in the complaint are that the OP -1 i.e. Apple India Pvt. Ltd. is manufacturer of Apple Mobiles and is in trade of sale and service of Apple Products in India. It is alleged that on 10/05/2013 the complainant bought a Apple I-phone 5 hand set from one of Apple’s Authorised Dealer, Hariom Communications located at 21, Gole Market, New Delhi-110001 for Rs. 45,600/- vide serial no. 013419008235498, which was under warranty for 12 months. It is alleged that the purchase of the Apple I-phone 5 mobile handset, the complainant started facing regular problems/issues relating to heating up and Auto Start problem and many a times phone did not switch on. The said problems were immediately reported to the party no. 2, Authorized Service Centre of Apple located at I world Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd. BG-07, Ground Floor, HUDCO Place, Khel Gaon Marg, New Delhi-110049.
It is further alleged that to get the handset repaired, the complainant made the visit to OP-2, authorized service centre of Apple Mobile several times. In the month of November of 2013 the complainant has assured by the OP-2 authorized service centre that the new handset would be given to the complainant as the complainant’s faulty handset was not repairable. Finally on 06th December 2013 OP-2 gave a I-phone-5 which was refurbished/used/old handset vide serial no. 013737000134488. It is further submitted that the complainant was assured by OP-2 by the Service Centre Manager that the refurbished/used/ old handset was only given to the complainant to accommodate the complainant because of non availability of stock and new handset, it was assured that new handset would be given to the complainant in maximum 6-8 weeks. On the assurance of the Manager the complainant accepted the refurbished/used/old handset as a temporary solution to the problems.
It is further stated that on the assurance and commitment made to the complainant by OP-2, the authorized service centre, the complainant waited till February 2014 for a new handset.
After checking the fault, the service centre submitted the handset vide service report no. 8419 dated 30th December 2014 and informed the complainant that within 24hrs. the service centre would provide with the solution or will provide a new handset to the complainant. It is further alleged that the after repairs, the Authorized Service Centre made the handset in bad condition then earlier. No repair was done as the faults/defect remained the same in the handset, hence the said handset was again re-submitted vide service jobsheet no. 803 dated 12th January 2015. Ultimately the handset could not be repaired upto 20th May 2015, the complainant had sent legal notice to the OPs but OP had not bothered to reply and even not to resolve the issue, hence this complaint.
OPs were noticed and OPs were filed written statement. It is stated on behalf of OP-1 in preliminary objections that the OP-3/OP-4 during inspection found that the complainant’s I-Phone was first replaced in December 2013 when it was still in warranty. It was only with the service replacement in September 2014, the complainant raised the issues to the OP3/OP4. It is further stated that the OP-1 was under obligation to replace the I-Phone with a new unit and other averments are denied. It is further stated that the complainant was assured of a new handset as the complainant’s faulty handset was not repairable and further the complainant was assured of a new handset and was given the temporary handset to accommodate the complainant only because of non-availability of stock.
OP-2 never appeared in court despite notices sent by this Forum. It is stated on behalf of OP-3&4 that the complaint is liable to be dismissed for mis-joinder of parties. OP-3&4 are only authorized service center of OP-1. The I-Phone in question has not been purchased from OP-3&4 and the complainant alleges the performance issues which in law could be directed against only OP-1, if any, who is manufacturer/importer of I-Phone into India. OP-3&4 are not the manufacturers of the iPhone in question. Therefore, there is no cause of action against the OP 3&4. Accordingly the complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs.
Parties have filed their respective evidence by way of affidavit, we have heard arguments advance at the bar and perused the records.
Perusal of the record shows that the complainant has placed on record a receipt of Rs. 45,600/- of I-Phone 5 which is admitted by the OPs. Complainant has also placed on record jobsheets which shows the issues with the phone in question i.e. Battery issue, Heating issue, Network issue, Device restart automatic issue etc. The copy of legal notice is also placed on record by the complainant.
It is observe that the complainant has purchased the handset in question and the same was submitted to the OP for repair but the same was not repaired adequately, therefore, it was submitted to OPs for repair many times and when the OP observed that the phone in question was not in a condition to repair, OP-1 assured the complainant to replace the phone with new one till then OPs also provided him a temporary phone for use but OP has failed to provide the new handset till date which amounts to deficiency. We therefore hold OP-1 guilty of deficiency in services and directed as under :-
Copy of the order may be forwarded to the parties to the case free of cost as statutorily required.
Announced in open Forum on _15/03/2019_.
The orders be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in.
(ARUN KUMAR ARYA)
PRESIDENT
(NIPUR CHANDNA) (H M VYAS)
MEMBER MEMBER
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.