Haryana

Karnal

CC/70/2015

Sandeep Sharma S/o Of Shri Pawan Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Apple India Pvt Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Arun Parasher

02 Nov 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL. 

                                                     Complaint No. 70 of 2015

                                                    Date of instt. 16.04.2015

                                                     Date of decision 02.11.2017

 

Sandeep Sharma son of Shri Pawan Sharma, resident of House no.238, Sector-5, Kurukshetra.

                                                                                 ……..Complainant.

                                        Versus

1. The Manager, Customer Support, Apple India Pvt. Ltd. 19^th Floor, Concorde Tower “C” UB City, No.24, Vittal Mallya Road, Banglore-560001, Karnataka State.

2. Infotech Computer & Communication, S.C.O. 204, Sector-13, Urban Estate, Karnal.

                                                   

     ..…Opposite Parties.

 Complaint u/s 12  of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

 

Before     Sh. Jagmal Singh……….President.

                Ms. Veena Rani…….Member

                Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

 

Present: Shri Arun Prasher Advocate for the complainant.

               Shri Dheeraj Sachdeva Adv. for opposite party no.1

               Shri Anand Garg Advocate for OP no.2.

               

                (JAGMAL SINGH, PRESIDENT)

 

 ORDER:

 

                This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, on the averments that he purchased one iphone 4, bearing IMEI no.013905002500689, white in colour from the M/s Space Communication, Kurukshetra for a sum of Rs.20000/-, vide bill no.5740 dated 4.7.2014 with the warranty of one year. From the very beginning, the mobile set created some problems in the networking and automatically switched off. He approached M/s Space Communication the owner of the shop advised to approach the OP no.2 i.e. authorized service providers, OP1 keep the mobile set and return back after one week with the assurance that the mobile set would not arise any problem in future, but after few weeks the mobile set again started problem in its networking, mobile heating, battery backup, calling and switch off. He again approached the OP no.2 for rectification of the defects, OP no.2 kept the mobile set and issue a letter no.3212 dated 10.11.2014. Till today he visited the office of OP no.2 a number of times but every time the OP no.2 told that the mobile set has been sent to the company for its repair. Then he sent a legal notice dated 20.12.2014 to the OPs in that regard neither the OPs changed the mobile set nor gave any report of said legal notice. In this way there was deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and hence complainant filed the present complaint.

2.             Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite parties, opposite party no.1 appeared and filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to locus standi; mis-joinder of party and cause of action. It has been submitted that the complaint failed to bring forth any pending grievance of the complainant. The documents on record show that the complainant had visited OP no.2 on 10.11.2014 and reported issues of networking, heating, battery backup, calling and switching off. The service report/delivery report issued by OP no.2 shows that the iphone 5s was collected on 8.5.2015 pursuant to OP no.2 resolving the reported issues of the phone and complainant took delivery of the iphone from OP no.2. That contrary to allegations made by the complainant, the documents on record fail to show any further reporting of any issues with the iphone 4.  The complainant never had any form of communication with OP no.1 with regard to any issues. It is a settled position of law that a manufacturer can be arrayed as a party only and when there is any manufacturing defect in the iphone. The complainant had faced any issues the same was never complained post 10.11.2014 i.e. after the collection of the iphone from OP no.2. Under such circumstances this complaint is bad is law as a premature complaint. The present facts and circumstances of the matter, it is evident that the complainant is still using the iphone which itself is conclusive proof that the iphone is without any manufacturing/inherent defect. The complainant has filed a false and frivolous complaint. It is pertinent to mention that the iphone would be replaced/repaired by the OP no.1 only if the OP no.2 certifies that it is within the warranty period and is certified to be repaired/replaced. None of this was observed or reported by OP no.2. It is admitted fact that the complainant was referred to OP no.2 for getting his iphone inspected and OP no.2 gave the report bearing no.3212 dated 10.11.2014. The complainant has not made the retailer a party to the present complaint from whom he has allegedly purchased the impugned iphone. Hence there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OP no.1.

3.             OP no.2 filed its separate reply stating therein that Infotech Computers and Communications are authorized service providers for Apple Products. Apple offer free of costs service to any hardware failure in its products in warranty, which a customer can avail from any of the nearby service centre throughout India.  the device received is tested for warranty verification through their on-line system. Device is opened and snapshots are shared with them. It was observed that user submitted his dented and cracked device almost an year back for heating, automatic switch off, network issues. Unit was put to prescribed tests, software updates and then was tested. None of the issues reported by user replicated. To help the user Device was tested by using it making calls apart from the tests and tools procedures but unfortunately no issue was replicated. User was informed about the same and was asked to pick up the device. As service Centre under the circumstances cannot do anything further on it as device did not fail. Inspite of reminders user did not pick up his device for the reasons well know to him. User can pick up his device anytime after submitting the required documents and dues. Hence there was no deficiency in services of any kind from service center.

4.             Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C1 and documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C6 and closed the evidence on 18.3.2016.

5.             On the other hand, opposite parties tendered into evidence affidavit of Mr.Priyesh Poovanna Ex.RW1/A and document Ex.R1 and closed the evidence on 12.8.2016.

6              We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and also gone through the documents placed on file carefully.

7.             From the pleadings of the case, it is clear that the parties have admitted that the complainant had purchased iphone 4 IMEI no.013905002500689, white in colour from the M/s Space Communication, Kurukshetra on 4.7.2014, vide bill no.5740 with the warranty of one year. Op no.1 is the manufacturer and OP no.2 is the service provider of the said iphone. It is also admitted by the parties that the said mobile phone develop some problems and the same was taken to OP no.2 who resolved the said problem. After few weeks, the said mobile set again became defective and raised problem of networking, heating, battery backup, calling and switch off. The complainant took the same with OP no.2, who kept the same, vide letter no.3212 dated 10.11.2014.

8.             According to the complainant that after deposit on 10.11.2014 the said mobile set was neither repaired nor replaced nor returned by OP no.2 and in this way the OPs are deficient in service. According to OP no.1, the said mobile was having no problem on 10.11.2014 and the same was returned to the complainant by OP no.2 and the complainant was using the same. According to OP no.2, the complainant submitted his dented and cracked device for heating, automatic switch off, network issues. The unit was put to prescribed tests, software updates and then was tested. None of the issues reported by user replicated. To help the user, Device was tested by using it making calls apart from the tests and tools procedures but unfortunately no issue was replicated. User was informed about the same and was asked to pick up the device. As the device did not fail, the service Centre under the circumstances cannot do anything further on it. Inspite of remainders user did not pick up his device for the reasons well best known to him.

9.             From the above, it is clear that the stand of OP no.1 and OP no.2 is contradictory, as OP no.1 says device was returned to the complainant whereas OP no.2 says that complainant did not collect the same.

10.           It is pertinent to mention here that on 6.2.2017, the OP no.2 provided the set in the court and the same was received by the complainant and the complainant sought two days time for checking. Statement of complainant in this regard was recorded separately. The case was adjourned to 9.2.2017 for compromise. On 9.2.2017 the complainant filed objection that the mobile phone which was deposited by him with the Op no.2 was having the IMEI no.013905002500689 and Sr. no.DX4M3L9WDPMW whereas the OP no.2 gave in the court different mobile set to complainant on 6.2.2017 with IMEI no.01390500186393 and sr. no.DX4M3TNWDPMW. The mobile set given by OP no.2 to the complainant on 6.2.2017 was returned to OP no.2 on 2.3.2017 and thereafter the case was adjourned for compromise on various dates and no compromise was effected between the parties.

11.           From the above facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that the OPs tried to play hot and cold regarding the factual position of the case. Even during the pendency of the case tried to mislead the complainant by way of giving other mobile set instead of the set of the complainant. From these facts, it is very much clear that the mobile set of complainant was having the defects and the OPs failed to resolve the grievance of the complainant. Therefore, in the circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the OPs have committed an act of unfair trade practice and hence are deficient in providing service to the complainant.

12.           Thus, as a sequel of above discussions, we allow the present complaint and direct the OPs to replace the mobile set in question with new one of the same make and model. However, it is hereby made clear that if the same make and model of the phone as purchased by the complainant is not available with the OPs then the OPS are liable to pay Rs.20,000/- the cost of the mobile set in question. The OPs are further directed to pay Rs.3000/- as compensation for harassment, mental agony and litigation expenses. This order shall be complied within 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 02.11.2017

                                                                       

                                                                       President,

                                                       District Consumer Disputes

                                                         Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 

 

                      (Veena Rani)           (Anil Sharma)

                            Member                 Member