Punjab

Faridkot

CC/21/28

Raj Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Apple India Pvt Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Rajneesh Garg

02 Feb 2022

ORDER

  DISTRICT  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  FORUM,  FARIDKOT

      Complaint No. :           28 of 2021

      Date of Institution :     27.01.2021

       Date of Decision :       02.02.2022

Raj Kumar aged about 46 years, son of Sh Ram Krishan, resident of Mohalla Khokhran, Nim Wali Gali, Faridkot.

   .....Complainant

Versus

 

1. Apple India Pvt L:td. No.24, 19^th Floor, Concorde Tower C, UB City, Vittal Maliya Road, Bangalore-560001 through its  Proprietor/Partner/ Authorized Signatory.
2. B2X Service Solutions India Pvt Ltd, (Apple (I Phone) Service Centre) SCF No. 23, Ground Floor, Phase-2, Urban Estate, Bathinda through its Proprietor/Partner/ Authorized Signatory.
3. Royal Telecom, Shop No.75-78, Baba Farid Market, near Kotwali, Faridkot through its Proprietor/Partner/ Authorized Signatory.

......OPs

Complaint under Section 35 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

cc no.-28 of 2021

 

Quorum:     Smt Param Pal Kaur, Member.

                     Sh Vishav Kant Garg, Member.

 

Present:      Sh Rajneesh Garg, Ld Counsel for complainant,    

                  Sh Manjit Singh Sodhi, Ld Counsel for OP-1,

                   Sh Ashu Mittal, Ld Counsel for OP-2,

                   Sh Ashok Kumar, Ld Counsel for OP-3.

 

(ORDER) 

( Param Pal Kaur, Member)

 

                                           Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against OPs seeking directions to them to replace the defective Ear Phones with new one and for further directing them to pay Rs.30,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment suffered by complainant alongwith litigation expenses of Rs.11,000/-.

2                                         Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that complainant purchased one i-phone 7 Mobile handset model GSM, 32 GB, Gold having EMEI No.356641080107718 for Rs.27,000/- from

cc no.-28 of 2021

OP-3 against  proper Bill No.4964 dated 28.01.2020. At the time of purchase, OPs assured about durability, long lasting and high quality of mobile in question and gave warranty for one year. Said ear phone started giving trouble as left ear pod was not working properly and there was no voice in it. Complainant approached OP-3 and brought this problem into his notice, but OP-3 took the matter very lightly and did not pay any heed to his requests, but on his repeated requests, OP-3 referred him to OP-2. On 22.01.2021, complainant handed over his ear phone to OP-2 for repair and after detailed checking, OP-2 told complainant that there was some minor defect, which after rectification would not cause any problem and said that repair would be done on seeing the mobile set and therefore, on 25.01.2021, complainant sent the  mobile set alongwith ear phones through his cousin Vikas to Op-2 for repair, but OP-2 returned the said mobile set and ear phone and declined to do any repair saying that there is a hole in the wire of ear phone. Complainant was shocked to hear about this as there was no hole in ear pod and it was intentionally done by OP-2 as it was reluctant to replace the same. Had there been any hole, this fact would

cc no.-28 of 2021

have been brought into the notice of complainant earlier on 22.01.2021 and if there was any hole, then there would have been no voice in right hole of set. All this amounts to deficiency in service and this act of OPs has caused huge harassment and mental agony to him. He has prayed for seeking directions to Ops to pay Rs.30,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment etc and Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses besides the main relief. Hence, the complaint.

3                                The Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 03.02.2021, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite party.

4                                 OP-1 filed written statement through counsel wherein denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that there is no deficiency in service on their part. However, it is admitted that complainant purchased the said mobile handset from OP-3 and it is also admitted that there was one year warranty for said phone from the date of purchase subject to terms

cc no.-28 of 2021

and conditions. It is further averred that OP-3 is reseller and OP-2 is AASP i.e their service centre. Complainant was fully aware of the terms and conditions of the warranty and was also aware that said device had to be physically checked by AASP. There is no record regarding denial of service to complainant by OP-2. It is admitted that complainant visited Op-2 on 22.01.2021 and it is also admitted that OP-2 requested complainant to provide his mobile that was required to be tested to check the left ear phone, but he deliberately did not provide the same. OP-1 and OP-2 never denied any sort of service or assistance to him and cannot be held liable to compensate him for his own acts and omission. Complainant did not send the mobile through his cousin on 25.01.2020. Had it been done, OPs would have issued Service Report. It is denied that complainant ever sent his cousin with mobile to be physically checked with ear phones. No report is produced regarding inspection done. Complainant has not brought on record any evidence to prove that OP-2 had mentioned there is a hole in the ear phone. Complainant has successfully used the said ear phones during its warranty period but just before few days of expiry of

cc no.-28 of 2021

warranty period, complainant has come up with fake allegations that ear phones in question are defective. All the other allegations are denied being wrong and incorrect and prayer for dismissal of complaint is made.

5                                                     On receipt of notice, OP-2 appeared in this Commission through counsel and filed written reply taking preliminary objections that complainant has not come to the court with clean hands and has concealed the material facts and has used the complaint as a tool to harass the answering OP. It is further averred that complaint in hand is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed as no cause of action arises against them. However, on merits, Op-2 has denied all the allegations levelled by complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that being service centre of OP-1, it provides services on behalf of OP-1 on their terms and conditions. However, it is admitted that Mr Vikas approached the service centre/OP-2 on 25.01.2021 for the problem that left ear pod was not working. Executive of OP-2 noticed that there was hole on it and at the same time he told him that said ear pod was damaged and cannot be repaired

cc no.-28 of 2021

or replaced under warranty due to damage and hole in it. Op-2 also told him that service centre follows the VMI guidelines & terms and conditions of OP-1 vide which it there was any accidental or liquid or damage, then no services would be provided under warranty. It is also admitted that after declining repair, OP-2 gave the copy of service report and delivery report to Mr Vikas in which it was clearly mentioned that left ear pod is not working but repair is declined as ear pods cable is damaged and having hole on it, hence VMI fails. All the other allegations are denied being wrong and incorrect and asserted that there is no deficiency in service on their part and made prayer for dismissal of complaint with costs.

6                                Ld Counsel for OP-3 filed written version wherein submitted that said mobile was sold by OP-3 to complainant, but denied all the other allegations being wrong and incorrect and asserted that complainant never approached answering OP regarding alleged defect. It is averred that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OP and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

 

cc no.-28 of 2021

7                                             Parties were given proper opportunities to lead evidence to prove their respective pleadings. Ld Counsel for complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to 3 and then, closed the evidence.

8                                        To controvert the allegations of complainant, Ld Counsel for OP-1 tendered in evidence affidavit of Sandeep Karamkar Ex OP-1/1 and documents Ex OP-1,/2 to Ex OP-1/3 and closed the same on behalf of OP-1. Ld Counsel for OP-2 tendered in evidence affidavit of Sherjeet Singh Ex OP-2/1 and documents Ex OP-2/2 to Ex OP-2/5 and then, closed the same. Proprietor/ OP-3 suffered statement before the Commission that reply filed by him be read as part of his evidence and closed the same on behalf of OP-3.            

9                                    We have heard the ld counsel for parties and have carefully gone through the evidence and documents placed on record by respective parties.

10                                   From the careful perusal of record and after thorough perusal of evidence and documents placed on record, it is

cc no.-28 of 2021

observed that case of the complainant is that on 28.01.2020, he purchased mobile in question from OP-3, which was manufactured by OP-1 against proper bill for Rs.27,000/-and OP-3 gave warranty of one year for same. The grievance of the complainant is that he purchased said mobile from OP-3, which was manufactured by OP-1. Earphones of mobile became faulty. Though it was under warrantee period, but despite repeated requests, OPs neither repaired nor  replaced the same. OPs paid no heed to requests of complainant to replace the said earphones and under compelling circumstances, he had to file the present complaint. Document Ex C-2 copy of bill dated 28.01.2020, clears the point that complainant purchased the said mobile from OPs for Rs.27,000/-. Ex C-3, copy of Service Report reveals the truth that complainant made complaint regarding non functioning of said product to OPs and complaint was registered with OPs. Despite repeated requests that it was under warranty period, OP-2 Service Centre of OP-1 did not do anything needful to repair or  replace the ear phones in question and instead of making repair or making replacement, OP-2 declined to render services. Through his affidavit Ex C-1, complainant

cc no.-28 of 2021

has reiterated his pleadings and has prayed for redressing his grievance.  It is observed that despite having sufficient knowledge of complaint regarding defect in ear phones made by complainant with them, OPs did not bother to correct the error either by making requisite repairs or by replacing the said ear phones, which amounts to deficiency in service.

11                              We have keenly considered the contentions in the light of evidence on record. Complainant has produced sufficient and cogent evidence to prove the negligence and deficiency in service on the part of OPs. It is observed that OP-1 has been deficient in providing proper services to complainant by not making directions to OP-2 for changing the said earphones. Had OP-1 taken effective and appropriate steps to redress the grievance of complainant by changing the earphones in question which cover the warrantee for one year, at time of first complaint by complaint, there would have been no complaint. Complainant has succeeded in proving his case and hence, complaint in hand is hereby allowed against OP-1 with direction to them to change the defective earphones with new one. OP-1 is also

cc no.-28 of 2021

directed to pay Rs.1000/- to complainant as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him alongwith Rs.1000/- as cost of litigation. Compliance of this order be made within one month of the receipt of the copy of the order, failing which complainant shall be entitled to proceed under Section 71 and 72 of the Consumer Protection Act. OP-3 is a shopkeeper and has no role to play in replacement of faulty earphones and OP-2 service centre acts only as per directions of OP-1 Manufacturing Company. Therefore, complaint against OP-2 and 3 stands hereby dismissed. Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record room.

Announced in Open Commission

Dated : 02.02.2022

(Vishav Kant Garg)       (Param Pal Kaur)

                                        Member                        Member

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

cc no.-28 of 2021

Raj Kumar     Vs    Apple India

 

Present:      Sh Rajneesh Garg, Ld Counsel for complainant,    

                  Sh Manjit Singh Sodhi, Ld Counsel for OP-1,

                   Sh Ashu Mittal, Ld Counsel for OP-2,

                   Sh Ashok Kumar, Ld Counsel for OP-3.

                    Arguments heard. Vide our separate detailed order of even date, complaint in hand is hereby allowed. Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record room.

Announced in Open Commission

Dated : 02.02.2022

(Vishav Kant Garg)       (Param Pal Kaur)

                                        Member                        Member