Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 544.
Instituted on : 26.11.2020
Decided on : 10.11.2022
Amit age 27 years, s/o Sh. Krishan Lal R/o H.No.105/25, Near Chacha Bakery, Chinyot colony Rhtak-124001.
.......................Complainant.
Vs.
- Apple India Pvt. Ltd., No.24, 19th Floor, Concord Tower, UB City, Vittal Malya Road, Bengaluru, Karnataka-560001(Karnataka).
- Manager, IVY Technology Servtch International Pvt. Ltd./DIGICARE Services Apple Rohtak(ASP) Shop no. 106 First Floor, Sheetal Life Style Mall D-Park Rohtak-124001, Haryana.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR. VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER
Present: Sh.Digvijay Jakhar Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. Kunal Juneja, Advocate for opposite party No. 1.
Opposite party No. 2 exparte.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case, as per the complainant are that complainant purchased a mobile APPLE Phone 11 Pro 64GB handset vide IMEI No. 353239106325845 on 24.06.2020 for a consideration of Rs.106000/- and opposite party No.2 is the authorized service provider of Apple India. Complainant was facing some technical problems in the mobile like heating, wifi connectivity, hanging, switch off without command etc. from the beginning. Therefore, complainant contacted authorized service centre many times at Rohtak & Delhi but every time respondents’ officials just formatted it and returned it back to the complainant without providing any jobsheet etc. to the complainant. The display of the said handset troubled again and complainant contacted the authorized service centre and they kept the mobile phone vide job sheet no.HR2009300088 dated 30.09.2020 and kept the said mobile handset for around one month and asked the complainant to pay repairing charges whereas the handset was under warranty and lateron handed over the same to the complainant without repairing it. Complainant sent emails dated 14.10.2020 and 22.10.2020 to the respondents and requested them to resolve the problem. But any heed was not paid to his requests. Complainant also served a legal notice dated 18.10.2020 but no positive response was received by the complainant. As such there is a clear deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to make the payment of Rs.106000/- alaongwith interest @ 24% p.m. from the date of billing and also to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony & harassment and Rs.20000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notices were issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party No. 1 in its reply has submitted that the Complainant had purchased an iPhone Pro bearing Serial No.C39C11YSN6XM on 25.06.2020. The complainant approached the authorized service provider of opposite party No.2 on 30.09.2020, alleging that there were some issues on the display of the said device. Opposite party No.2 sent the said phone to centralized Repair Centre of opposite party no.1. The RC checked the said phone and found it to be tampered with third party modifications and in turn it was determined to be in violation of the warranty. The complainant was specifically informed by the opposite party No.2 that his iPhone was out of warranty due to the said tampering and he would have to pay for the repair. Despite being advised and being aware about the said warranty having been violated, the complainant has filed this malafide complaint. Hence the same is not maintainable. No other complaint has been filed by the complainant. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs. However, none appeared on behalf of opposite party no. 2 despite service of notice through registered post. As such opposite party No.2 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 13.12.2021 of this Commission.
3. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5 and has closed his evidence on dated 11.03.2022. Ld. counsel for the opposite party No. 1 has tendered document Ex. RW1/A, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R2 and closed his evidence on dated 13.06.2022.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. In the present case it is not disputed that complainant purchased a mobile phone for a sum of Rs.106000/- as is proved from the bill Ex.C1 dated 24.06.2020. As per job sheet Ex.C2 dated 30.09.2020 there was ‘blank back display issue’ in the alleged mobile phone. As per the complainant, opposite party kept the said mobile handset for around one month and asked the complainant to pay repairing charges whereas the handset was under warranty and lateron handed over the same to the complainant without repairing it. Complainant has also placed on record copy of email Ex.C3 dated 14.10.2020 whereby the alleged allegations regarding defect in the mobile set have been reiterated. Despite repeated requests made by the complainant, his phone has not been repaired by the opposite parties within warranty period. Hence the complainant has prayed for refund of price of mobile set. Ld. counsel for the complaint has also placed reliance upon the order dated 11.02.2014 of Hon’ble State Commission, titled as Jugnu Dhillon Vs. Reliance Digital Retail Ltd. On the other hand, opposite party No.1 has contended that the mobile in question was out of warranty as the Repair Centre of opposite party no.1 checked the said phone and found it to be tampered with third party modifications, which was in violation of the warranty conditions. But to prove the same, opposite party has not placed on record any checking report or affidavit of the concerned checking Engineer/Expert. It is also observed that the Apple is a renowned company of such worldwide stature and the consumer purchases its costly mobiles after impressing by its name and fame and for long time utilization of the same under the impression that the such costly mobile would be free from every defect and will give longtime results. But when such like companies do not redress the grievances/do not remove the defects of their product, the customers lose their faith in the company. Hence the act of opposite parties of not removing the defects of the mobile set within warranty period amounts to deficiency in service and the law cited above by ld. counsel for the complainant is fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case. As such opposite party no.1 being the manufacturer is liable to refund the price of mobile set after deducting the 15% depreciation on it as the complainant has used the mobile set uninterruptedly for 3 months. i.e. to pay Rs.90100/-(Rs.106000/- less Rs.15900/-).
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party No.1 to refund the amount of Rs.90100/-(Rupees ninety thousand and one hundred only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e.26.11.2020 till its realization and shall also pay Rs.6000/-(Rupees six thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service as well as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision. However complainant is directed to hand over the mobile in question to the opposite parties at the time of making payment by the opposite party No.1
7. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
10.11.2022.
.....................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Tripti Pannu, Member
……………………………….
Vijender Singh, Member
