Haryana

Kaithal

247/20

Atul Goel - Complainant(s)

Versus

Apple India Pvt Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Anurag Gupta

09 Jun 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL.

                                                     Complaint Case No.247/2020.

                                                     Date of institution: 17.08.2020.

                                                     Date of decision:09.06.2023.

Atul Goyal son of Sh. Mahavir Goyal, resident of House No.372, Model Town, Kaithal, District Kaithal (Haryana).

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. Apple India Pvt. Ltd., 19^th Floor, Concorde Tower C, UB City, No.24, Vittal Mallya Road, Banglore-560001.
2. Cell4U through its authorized representative, G-59, Plot No.17, Aggarwal City Plaza, Manglam Place, Sector-3, Rohini.
3. IQOR, Global Services India Pvt. Ltd. through its authorized representative, Shop No.3, 2^nd floor, Super Mall, Sector-3, Part-I, Opposite Income Tax Department, Karnal, District Karnal (Haryana).

….OPs.

        Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

CORAM:     SMT. NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.

                SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.

                SH. SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA, MEMBER.

       

Present:     Sh. Anurag Gupta, Advocate, for the complainant.   

                Sh. Vikram Tiwari, Advocate for the OP.No.1.

                OPs No.2 & 3 exparte.

               

ORDER

NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT

        Atul Goyal-Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the OPs.

2.             In nutshell, the facts of present case are that the complainant had purchased a new Apple i-Phone X64GB Silver having HSN/SAC Code 85171290 on 25.12.2018 for the sum of Rs.76,800/- from the OP No.2 vide invoice No.1061 dt. 25.12.2018.  The said Apple Phone was under warranty period of one year and the complainant had taken another one year protection plan for Rs.4500/- from the OP No.3 on 02.11.2019.  The case of complainant is that due to manufacturing defect in the said i-Phone, the display (screen) of the i-Phone was not working and it was showing only black spot.  The battery back-up of the said phone was also not working.  The complainant approached the OP No.3 on 02.11.2019  and screen/display of the i-Phone was replaced with the new one.  Unfortunately, even after alleged replacement of the screen/display, the same problem again cropped-up.  On 16.11.2019, the complainant again visited the OP No.3 and deposited the said i-Phone with the OP No.3 but the OP No.3 did not repair the said i-Phone.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of OPs and prayed for acceptance of complaint.     

3.            Upon notice, the OP No.1 appeared before this Commission, whereas OPs No.2 & 3 did not appear and opted to proceed against exparte vide order dt. 14.10.2020 passed by this Commission.  OP No.1 contested the complaint by filing their written version raising preliminary objections that in the present complaint, the complainant had purchased i-Phone Silver 64GB bearing IMEI No.354846096837578 on 25.12.2018 with one year warranty from OP No.2.  The complainant alleges that he also took protection plan from OP No.3 and extended his warranty period till 25.12.2020.  The complainant had approached the OP No.3 on 02.11.2019 with the issue of spots on the display and battery back-up problem.  It is pertinent that i-Phone was readily repaired by OP No.3, by replacing the display and delivered it back to the complainant.  Once again the complainant approached the OP No.3 on 16.11.2019 with the issue of lines on the display.  After examination of the i-Phone, it was found by OP No.3 that the display was third party non-genuine product, hence the i-Phone was rendered out of warranty.  Clause “to damage caused by use with a third party component or product that does not meet the Apple Product’s Specifications” renders the i-Phone out of warrant, hence OP No.3 denied services within warranty.  It is pertinent to mention that presently, the OP No.3 is not an AASP and the list of AASP’s near the complainant’s location as per the OP No.1 website are available online.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP.  On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are rebutted and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.             To prove his case, the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C4 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

5.             On the other hand, the OP No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-R1 to Annexure-R3 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

6.             We have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the record carefully.

7.             Ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant had purchased a new Apple i-Phone X64GB Silver having HSN/SAC Code 85171290 on 25.12.2018 for the sum of Rs.76,800/- from the OP No.2 vide invoice No.1061 dt. 25.12.2018 as per Annexure-C1.  The said Apple Phone was under warranty period of one year and the complainant had taken another one year protection plan for Rs.4500/- from the OP No.3 on 02.11.2019 as per Annexure-C4.  It is further argued that due to manufacturing defect in the said i-Phone, the display (screen) of the i-Phone was not working and it was showing only black spot.  The battery back-up of the said phone was also not working.  It is further argued that the complainant approached the OP No.3 on 02.11.2019 and screen/display of the i-Phone was replaced with the new one.  Unfortunately, even after alleged replacement of the screen/display, the same problem again cropped-up.  On 16.11.2019, the complainant again visited the OP No.3 and deposited the said i-Phone with the OP No.3 but the OP No.3 did not repair the said i-Phone.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of OPs.

8.             On the other hand, ld. counsel for the OP No.1 has argued that the complainant had approached the OP No.3 on 02.11.2019 with the issue of spots on the display and battery back-up problem.  It is further argued that i-Phone was readily repaired by OP No.3, by replacing the display and delivered it back to the complainant.  It is further argued that once again the complainant approached the OP No.3 on 16.11.2019 with the issue of lines on the display.  After examination of the i-Phone, it was found by OP No.3 that the display was third party non-genuine product, hence the i-Phone was rendered out of warranty.   

9.             We have considered the rival contentions of both the parties.  It is clear from the bill/invoice dt. 25.12.2018 as per Annexure-C1 that the complainant purchased the mobile set in question for the sum of Rs.76,800/- from the OP No.2.  It is also clear from Annexure-C4 that the warranty was extended by the complainant from Op No.3 on 02.11.2019 by paying the sum of Rs.4500/-.  The grievance of the complainant is that the mobile set in question became defective within the warranty period and screen/display of the i-Phone was replaced with the new one.  The further grievance of the complainant is that even after alleged replacement of the screen/display, the same problem again cropped-up.  On 16.11.2019, the complainant again visited the OP No.3 and deposited the said i-Phone with the OP No.3 but the OP No.3 did not repair the said i-Phone despite the fact that the said mobile set was within warranty period.  It is pertinent to mention here that in para No.5 of the complaint, the complainant alleged that the mobile set in question is lying in the custody of Op No.3 but during the course of arguments, the complainant has admitted that the mobile set is lying with himself.  On the other hand, the OP No.3 did not appear in the court even single time and was proceeded against exparte.  So, the evidence produced by the complainant goes unrebutted and unchallenged against the OP No.3.  OP No.3 is service-centre of OP No.1 and the same has been closed.  Op No.3 being agent of Op No.1 had received the amount of Rs.4500/- from the complainant for extended warranty as mentioned above.  Hence, we are of the considered view that there is deficiency in service on the part of all the OPs.      

10.            Thus, in view of above discussion as-well-as in the interest of justice, we direct the Ops jointly and severally to repair the said mobile set in question and to replace the defective parts, if any, free of cost to the satisfaction of complainant within 45 days from today.  Hence, the present complaint is accepted partly against all the OPs. 

11.            In default of compliance of this order, proceedings against respondents-OPs shall be initiated under Section 72 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 as non-compliance of court order shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one month, but which may extend to three years, or with fine, which shall not be less than twenty five thousand rupees, but which may extend to one lakh rupees, or with both.  A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.     

Announced in open court:

Dt.:09.06.2023.

                                                                (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                President.

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Suman Rana),          

Member.                            Member.

 

Typed by: Sanjay Kumar, S.G.