Haryana

Karnal

CC/345/2017

Aman Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Apple India Pvt. Ltd's Corporate - Opp.Party(s)

Parveen Daryal

12 Jun 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

                                                         Complaint No.345 of 2017

                                                         Date of instt. 16.10.2017

                                                         Date of decision:12.06.2018

 

Aman Kumar, aged 26 years son of Shri Harish Baghi, resident of 1409, Sector-6, Karnal.

                                                                                                                                                                        …….Complainant.

                                                Versus

 

1.Apple India Pvt. Ltd. Corporate, Identification no.U30007KA996PTC019630, Regd. No.196301, 19^th floor, Concorde Tower, C-U.B. City no.24, Vittal Malya Road, Bangalore KA-560001, through its authorized signatory.

2. Infotech Computers & Communications, SCO 204, Sector-12, Urban Estate, Karnal-132001, through its authorized signatory.

3. Mobile Paradise, 253 Link Road, Char Chaman, Karnal-132001 through its Authorized Signatory/Proprietor/Partner.

 

                                                                     …..Opposite Parties.

 

           Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 

 

Before   Shri Jagmal Singh……President.

                Shri Anil Sharma……Member

 

Present: Shri Parveen Daryal Advocate for complainant.

                 Shri Dheeraj Sachdeva Advocate for OP no.1.

                 Shri Anand Garg Advocate for OP no. 2.

                 OP no.3 exparte.

 

ORDER:                    

         

                   (JAGMAL SINGH, PRESIDENT)

 

                 This complaint has been filed by the complainants u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 on the averments that complainant had purchased a mobile Iphone 6(S) 32 G.B. bearing IMEI no.359211071925333 from OP no.3 authorized dealer of OP no.1, vide bill no.66 dated 11.02.2017 for an amount of Rs.50,000/- with the warranty of one year. OP no.1 is the manufacturer of the said phone and OP no2. is the authorized dealer of OP no.1. In the end of February, 2017 the mobile set created problems of Hanging and Speaker brust. Complainant approached the OP no.3, who advised to go to OP no.2 the authorized service centre of OP no.1. OP no.2 checked the handset of complainant and got it Reset through its Engineer and handed over the same to the complainant after some times. However, no job card was opened and no complaint of any kind was lodged. Again in the month of March, 2017, the same problem was occurred in the handset. The complainant again approached the OP no.2, who again Rest the handset and returned to the complainant. Again no complaint was lodged by the OP no.2 and no job card was opened. Thereafter, the same was problem was again occurred and on 14.08.2017 he again approached to the OP no.2, who checked the mobile set and said that there was some manufacturing defect in the mobile sent and it will be sent to Bangalore, if it will be replaced, a new handset will be given and if repaired, the same handset will be given to him. On 19.08.2017, a new Handset with new IMEI no.359211078003159, sr. no.FVMTVOVLHFLU was handed over to the complainant by the OP no.2 in replacement of the originally purchased handset with an assurance that it will work perfectly. On 20.8.2017, the complainant was shocked when the new replaced handset was “Hanged” like previous one. It was a holiday on 20.08.2017, so the complainant went to the OP no.2 on 23.08.2017, the OP no.2 asked the complainant to deposit the same and returned after resetting the same on 23.08.2017 to the complainant. On 28.08.2017 there arose battery charging problem in the handset, the battery used to discharge within ½ hour after its full charging and there appeared “half screen” when keyboard is opened by the complainant. The said problem was shown to OP no.2, who asked the complainant to deposit the handset saying that it will be sent to Bangalore and returned after its repair or replaced as per order of Bangalore office. On 30.08.2017, OP no.2 returned the handset of the complainant saying that it has been received back from Bangalore after its repairs, although the complainant showed the half screen again to the Engineer of the OP no.2 there and then but he put off the complainant with one pretext or the other. Neither the mobile set has been repaired properly nor replaced the same with new one knowingly and intentionally, rather there is manufacturing defect in the replaced handset also. In this way there was deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence complainant filed the present complaint.

2.             Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs. OP no.1 appeared and filed written statement stating therein that complainant had purchased iphone 6 from OP no.3 on 11.02.2016 bearing sr. no.F18S321SHFLV, the complainant approached the OPno.2 in the month of February 2017 with regard to some alleged issues with his iphone. OP no.2 is the authorized service provider of OP no.1 inspected the said iphone and the device was reset and was returned back to the complainant, in March, 2017, the complainant experienced the same issue and the device was reset again by OP no.2. Further, it is pertinent ot mention here that the complainant again approached the OP no.2 again on 14.08.2017, the device was replaced this time with new device bearing sr. no.FVMTVOVLHFLV. The complainant thereafter never approached the OP no.2 for any issues as the new replaced device was working smoothly. The complainant has not produced any documents regarding the issues with the new replaced device. There is no evidence to show that complainant had visited the OP no.2 on 20.08.2017. The OP no.1 never repairs any iphone without issuing a service report, OP no.1 is authorized service provider of OP no.2 and it specifically issues a service report of all the devices of the OP no.2 when they are given for inspection with regard to any issue. There are no service reports or emails produced by the complainant to show that his new replaced iphone was inspected by the OP no.2 on 28.8.2017, on this ground the complainant is not liable for any refund/compensation from OP no.1. Hence there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OP no.1. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

2.             Learned counsel of OP no.2 has made a statement that  reply filed by OP no.1 be also read as reply of OP no.2.

3.             OP no.3 did not appear and proceeded against exparte by the order of this Forum dated 11.12.2017.

4.             Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C8 and closed the evidence on 21.3.2018.

5.             On the other hand, OPs no.1 and 2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Priyesh Poovanna Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.R1 and Ex.R2 and closed their evidence on 23.4.2018.

6.             We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the record available on the file carefully.

7.             From the pleadings and evidence of the case, it is clear that the complainant had purchased a mobile Iphone 6 S 32GB, vide bill no.666, dated 11.02.2017 for a sum of Rs.50,000/- from OP no.3. It is alleged by the complainant that after few days of its purchase the problems of Hanging and Speaker brust were occurred. The complainant approached the OPs within warranty period for resolving these defect and the OPs replaced the said iphone with new one bearing IMEI no.359211078003159. Unfortunately, this new iphone has also creating problems like hanging. The complainant approached the OPs on 23.082017 vide job sheet Ex.C3 and the OP repaired the same and return the mobile set to the complainant. Thereafter, the mobile set again started problem in display and the complainant again approached the OP no.2 on 28.08.2017 and the OPs kept the mobile set with them and returned the same on 30.08.2017. According to the complainant the OPs stated that the problem has been removed from the mobile set but infact the problem was not removed. Thereafter, complainant approached the OP no.2 so many times and requested to replace the said defective iphone but OPs always lingered the matter on one pretext or the other and neither repair the mobile set nor replaced the same. The complainant has produced on the file copy of the bill Ex.C1, copy of job sheets Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-4, legal notice Ex.C5 and postal receipts Ex.C6 to Ex.C8. The complainant has also filed his affidavit in support of his allegations. The copies of the job sheets Ex.C-3 and Ex.C-4 clearly shows that even the replaced new mobile set was also having problems of hanging and display during warranty period. The job sheets Ex.C3 and Ex.C4 are dated 23.8.2017 and 28.08.2017. From these job sheets it is clear that after replacement of the mobile set in question i.e. on 19.08.2017, the replaced mobile set gave problem and the complainant had to approach the OP twice within a week. These facts clearly indicate that the replaced mobile set was also having defects. So, we found force in the contention of complainant that the replaced new mobile phone was a defective mobile set and the OPs have not replaced the same.  Hence, the OPs are deficient in providing services to the complainant.

8.             The complainant argued that he has purchased the mobile set of a renowned company i.e. Apple India Private Limited. No doubt the OPs have replaced the first mobile set with another new mobile set but the other mobile set is also a defective piece and started problem from the very beginning. The belief of the complainant was hurt and he cannot believe for further replacement, so the complainant filed the complaint for refund of the cost of the mobile set. This contention of the complainant has force because from the facts of the case it is clear that the first mobile set was defective, so the OPs replaced the same with new one. The new replaced mobile set started problem from the very beginning which is clear from job sheets Ex.C-3 and Ex.C-4. At the time of arguments the complainant stated that he has purchased a new mobile set and in the interest of justice, the cost of mobile may please be got returned from the OPs.  In this regard, we can rely upon the authority decided by Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana bearing first appeal no.460 of 2014 decided on 28.5.2014 titled as Deepjot Singh Vs. The Mobile Store wherein the Hon’ble State Commission has allowed 70% cost of the mobile set. The complainant in that case has used the mobile for more than 6 months. In the present case also the complainant has used the mobile set for about six months. So, keeping in view the above citation, we are of the considered opinion that the interest of justice will be met if the cost of mobile set be order to be refunded to the complainant after making 30% depreciation of the same.

9.             Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we allow the present complaint partly and direct the OPs to pay Rs.37,500/- (i.e. 70% of Rs.50,000/-, the cost of the mobile set to the complainant, subject to submitting the old phone with its accessories to the service centre of the company. We further direct the OPs to pay Rs.2500/- to the complainant on account of mental tension, harassment and litigation expenses. All the OPs are jointly and severally liable.  The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:12.06.2018

                                                               

                                                                 President,

                                                        District Consumer Disputes

                                                        Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 

 

                        (Anil Sharma)

                          Member