BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.398 of 2018
Date of Instt. 25.09.2018
Date of Decision:16.03.2022
Lovepreet S/o Sh. Sarabjit Singh resident of 25, Sunshine Valley, Opposite Moti Bagh, PO Chuggitti, Jalandhar.
..........Complainant
Versus
1. Apple India Pvt. Ltd., 19th Floor, Concorde Tower C UB City No.24, Vittal Mallya Road, Bangalore-560001, Karnataka.
2. IQQR Global Services India Pvt. Ltd., F3, 1st Floor, MBD Mall, GT Road, BMC Chowk, Jalandhar.
….….. Opposite Parties
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)
Smt. Jyotsna (Member)
Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon (Member)
Present: Sh. Ashok Sharma, Adv. Counsel for the Complainant.
Sh. Aditya Jain, Adv. Counsel for OP No.1.
OP No.2 exparte.
Order
Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj(President)
1. The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein he has alleged that he purchased an Iphone Mobile model 6 of 32 GB having IMEI No.3566450809206166 from Mobile House, Near Bhagat Singh Chowk, Jalandhar vide Invoice No.T-40618 dated 26.03.2018 for a sum of Rs.25,000/-. That after three months of its purchase, the above said mobile started giving camera problem and software problem and the complainant had approached the OP No.2 for the redressal of his grievance. The OP No.2 is the authorized centre of the OP No.1 at Jalandhar. That the OP No.2 has taken the mobile set of the complainant under case No.50234777 dated 25.06.2018 and assured him that the mobile set will be repaired as the mobile set is within the period of guarantee/warranty and the OP No.2 had made offer to the complainant that he can take loaner mobile from them in due course till the mobile set of the complainant repaired. But the complainant refused to take the loaner mobile. But the OP No.2 forced the complainant that it is the policy of the apple company to give loaner mobile to the customer till his mobile set repaired. That the OP No.2 has given a loner mobile set iPhone 6 of 16 GB having IMEI No.359220078239390 of 2017 to the complainant. That after few days, the complainant was informed by the OP No.2 that his mobile set has been repaired and he can collect the same from the service center. The complainant went to the office of the OP No.2 for collecting his mobile set. But the OP No.2 has raised objection that loaner mobile has a scratch so they will not give the mobile set of the complainant. The complainant has requested the OP No.2 that he did not do any wrong with the loaner mobile and told them that the loaner mobile is in the same condition as it was given to him. But the OP No.2 told the complainant that he has to pay Rs.25,000/- then they will return the mobile set to him otherwise he has to keep the loaner mobile set Iphone 6 of 16 GB with him. That the complainant has lodged his grievances with the OPs many times but the same was not redressed by them. That the OP No.1 is the manufacturer of the mobile in question and the OP No.2 is the authorized service centre of the OP No.1 hence the liability of all the OPs is joint and several. That the non-returning the mobile set of the complainant amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs and as such necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to return the mobile set of the complainant in working condition or to refund the amount Rs.25,000/- , which is the price of the mobile set alongwith interest and compensation for mental tension, harassment of Rs.50,000/- and Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses.
2. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, but despite service OP No.2 did not appear and ultimately, OP No.2 was proceeded against exparte, whereas OP No.1 appeared and filed its written reply, whereby contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is malafide one, devoid of merit and contradictory to the established principles of law. The instant complaint has been devised to mislead this Commission. It is further averred that the provisions and terms of the Apple Warranty specifically exclude damaged products which is the case in the present matter. It is pertinent to mention that, it is the result of complainant’s negligently handling of the loaner device and not due to the manufacturing defect or due to deficiency in service. The complainant has not produced any sort of expert opinion to prove that the device was defective. It is pertinent to mention that the complainant has not produced any evidence to show that the OP No.1 will replace the device beyond the warranty policy or the device was defective with the warranty policy. The complainant is misleading the facts and trying to disparage the rapport of 1st OP by alleging frivolous claims, his allegations had led to affect the goodwill of 1st OP. On merits, the factum in regard to purchasing the mobile handset by the complainant is admitted and it is also admitted that the complainant approached OP No.2 for some issues, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.
3. Rejoinder not filed by the complainant.
4. In order to prove their respective versions, both the parties produced on the file their respective evidence.
5. We have heard the argument from learned counsel for both the parties and have also gone through the case file very minutely.
6. The case of the complainant is that he purchased Apple iPhone 6 of 32 GB for Rs.25,000/- on 26.03.2018. But after three months of its purchase, it started giving camera problem and software problem. The complainant approached the OP No.2 i.e. authorized service centre of OP No.1, for the redressal of his grievances. The OP No.2 has taken the mobile and assured him that the mobile set will be repaired as the same is within warranty period and gave him a loaner mobile as it is the policy of the apple company to give loaner mobile to the customer till his mobile set repaired. After few days the complainant was informed by the OP No.2 that his mobile set has been repaired and the complainant collected the same, but the OP No.2 has raised objection that loaner mobile has a scratch so they will not give the mobile set of the complainant and told that he has to pay Rs.25,000/-, then they will return the mobile set to him otherwise he has to keep the loaner mobile set Iphone 6 of 16 GB with him. Request has been made to allow the complaint.
7. The complainant has proved on record the bill Ex.C-1, copy of service call Ex.C-2, Legal notice Ex.C-3, Ex.C-4 & Ex.C-5 Postal Receipts.
8. The contention of the OP No.1 is that the complainant approached the OP No.2 i.e. service centre for some alleged issues regarding camera problem and the OP No.2 sent the device for further inspection to repair center Bangalore. The complainant was provided with loaner device till his device was under service and thereafter the complainant was informed that his device is ready and in working condition and asked the complainant to collect his device from OP No.2 and when the complainant returned the loaner device to the OP No.2, they refused to accept the same as the device was found with heavy scratches and hence they refused to return the complainant’s device until the complainant pay the damages occurred to the loaner device. Thereafter the complainant never returned to the OP No.2. Request has been made to dismiss the complaint.
9. It is proved on record by Ex.C-1 that the mobile handset i.e. iPhone 6 of 32 GB was purchased on 26.03.2018. The other document Ex.C-2 i.e. Service Call Report, wherein it is clearly mentioned the General Problem that the Iphone back Camera not working. As per this document, it is proved that the complainant approached the OP No.2 on 25.06.2018, i.e. after the purchase of three months and within warranty period and in this document, the problem is also mentioned as back camera not working.
10. Apart from above, the mobile phone of the complainant was checked as alleged by the OP in the service call report Ex.C-2 and the phone was within warranty period. The OP No.2 stated in his reply that there were heavy scratches on loaner device, but the OP has not proved this fact by examining any expert nor he has proved on record any documents to prove this fact. This itself establishes that the plea taken by the OPs is not a correct one, rather the case of the complainant from the document is proved that the iPhone was having problem. So, from the overall circumstances, it is established that there is some manufacturing defect in the mobile and it occurred within warranty period and therefore, the complainant is entitled for the relief claimed.
11. In the light of above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant is partly allowed and OP No.2 is directed to replace the Iphone model 6 of 32 GB with new one and the complainant is directed to return the loaner mobile set Iphone 6 of 16 GB to the OP No.2, in case of missing the said loaner mobile, Rs.10,000/- be deducted out of Rs.25,000/-, which is the price of the Iphone 6 of 32 GB and voucher of Rs.15,000/- be given and in case the Iphone 6 is missing, the voucher of Rs.25,000/- i.e. price of the Iphone shall be given to the complainant. Further OPs are directed to pay Rs.3000/- as compensation for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant and Rs.2000/- as litigation expenses. The entire compliance be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of order. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
12. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.
Dated Jaswant Singh Dhillon Jyotsna Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj
16.03.2022 Member Member President
