BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.188 of 2016
Date of Instt. 26.04.2016
Date of Decision: 19.09.2017
Anant Kumar Arora Advocate S/o Sh. Satnam Dass Arora R/o 263, G.T.B. Nagar, Jalandhar.
..........Complainant Versus
1. Apple India Pvt. Ltd, 19th Floor, Concorde Tower-C, U.B. City, No.24, Vittal Mallya Road, Banglore-560001 through its Managing Director.
2. M/s B2X Service Solutions India Pvt. Ltd, Business Bay Ground Floor, 182-R, Model Town, Jalandhar-144003 through its Branch Manager.
3. M/s Chadha Mobile House Pvt. Ltd., 8-B, Model Town, Jalandhar-144003.
….… Opposite parties
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Sh. Karnail Singh (President)
Sh. Parminder Sharma (Member)
Present: Sh. Nitish Arora, Adv Counsel for the complainant.
Sh. Aditya Jain, Adv. Counsel for the OP No.1.
Sh. Umesh Ohri, Adv. Counsel for the OP No.2.
OP No.3 exparte.
Order
Karnail Singh (President)
1. This complaint presented by the complainant, wherein alleged that the complainant has purchased one Apple Mobile 5S 16GB bearing IME No.359269065099622, Serial No.DX3Q4C8ZFRC6 on 20.09.2015 from OP No.3, vide Invoice No.608 dated 20.09.2015 for Rs.31,000/- with a warranty of one year. The OP No.1 is the manufacturer of the said Apple Mobile and OP No.2 is authorized service centre of the OP No.1. On 21.04.2016, the display of the said mobile became blank and accordingly the complainant approached OP No.2 i.e. Authorized Service Centre of OP No.1 for replacement/repair of the said mobile. The OP No.2 prior to accepting the said mobile set for repair/replacement, got the said mobile set checked by the technician/service engineer, who was sitting behind the reception, who opened the said mobile at the service centre in the presence of the complainant, to check any type of tempering or mishandling etc.
2. That after satisfying that there was no tempering or mishandling or water etc. inside the mobile, OP No.2 accepted the said mobile set, vide receipt dated 21.04.2016 and job sheet was issued. The complainant was told that the mobile set shall be set alright within a period of 3-4 days and expected delivery date was given to the complainant as 26.04.2016. The complainant received a phone call from the service centre on the same day in the evening and it was stated on phone that the mobile set is not repairable and does not fall under the warranty since the connectors of the display had been broken. The complainant told the official of the service centre over phone that there was no question of breakage of the display connectors, since it was never opened by anyone prior to giving the same at the service centre. There was no question of showing the said mobile to anyone since it was under a valid warranty. The complainant further told that the display connector might have been broken by the technician, who has opened the set after receiving the same for service and at the time of checking the same, prior to accepting it for service. The complainant received email from the service centre stating therein as under:-
“Your product carrying job ID JAL210416190382 is cancelled due to unit not repairable and to be returned. Thank you”. No reason whatsoever were given by the said service centre in its email dated 21.04.2016.
3. That the complainant immediately sent the mail to OPs No.1 and 2 on 21.04.2016 stating the above said facts and it was written in the said mail that the mobile set was given at the service centre in sealed condition and there was no tempering of any type in the said set, prior to handling over the same at the service centre. Since the mobile set was under a valid warranty and as such it was not shown to any outside mechanic and as such there is no question of breakage of the connectors of the display as stated by the official of the service centre on his mobile. It may be possible that these connectors might have been broken, when the set was opened by the service engineer, sitting at the centre, who has checked the set prior to receiving the same for repair by the service centre or these might have been broken at the time of opening of the set at the time of alleged micro inspection. In response to aforesaid email, the complainant gave a reply, vide email dated 22.04.2016. The complainant contacted on a Tollfree number of the OP No.1 on 21.04.2016 and explained the entire version to the customer care centre, which noted down the contents of his complaint and case No.1095569001 was given to him regarding his complaint, made at the said toll free number of OP No.1. The customer care executive told him that the complainant should go to the service centre and call the tollfree number again for solution to the problem and accordingly complainant went to the service centre on 23.04.2016 at about 3 PM and called the tollfree number and there was a talk on the said tollfree number for about one hour by the complainant and so also the officials of the service centre. The complainant was told that his complaint would be solved within a day or so but till today the mobile set of the complainant is lying at the service centre of the OP No.1 i.e. with OP No.2, which is not repaired and due to that reason, the complainant is under constant stress, strain and tension and further there is a deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and as such the present complaint filed with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to make payment of Rs.31,000/- to the complainant being the price of the mobile set and further OPs be directed to pay compensation for stress, strain and tension, to the tune of Rs.50,000/- and further OPs be directed to pay litigation expenses to the extent of Rs.10,000/-.
4. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs but despite service, OP No.3 did not come present and ultimately OP No.3 was proceeded against exparte, whereas OP No.1 appeared through his counsel and filed reply, whereby contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that at the outset is respctfully submitted that the contentions, submissions and allegations are incorrect, misleading and denied except which are specifically admitted and further averred that the iPhone of the complainant was found with patches on the display of the connector and confirmed, it was due to connector pin damage, which could possible be provoked by reasons only and only contributable to the complainant as there is no possibility of such damage under any other circumstances. There was also some rust on pins and it is caused due to the liquid damage, which is again due to the complainant's own fault and not a fault that can be attributed to the OP No.1 or the device supplied to the OP No.2 for service. It is further averred that when the iPhone was received and after opening it was found that the connector was broken. This is clearly an act of breach of the warranty provisions of the Apple, as internal damage caused due to Consumer mistake, which cannot be leading OP No.1to be held liable. It is further averred that the complainant has concealed the material facts from the Forum. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant has purchased a mobile set from OP No.3, but the remaining allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merit and the same may be dismissed.
5. OP No.2 filed separate written reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable in the present form, as the same is based upon wrong, false and frivolous facts as the complainant is guilty of materially concealing and suppressing material facts and has approached this Forum with unclean hands with the sole intention of deceiving this Forum. It is specifically submitted that the complainant's suppression and concealment is evident from the fact that cogent, technical factors show that the damage to the complainant's iPhone is solely attributed to the complainant's own action, which are in breach of the terms of the Apple Warranty and further alleged that the complainant has failed to disclose all the facts before this Forum, which if disclosed would have indicated that there is no cause of action in favour of the complainant against the answering OP. The facts narrated by the complainant have been represented in a misleading manner. The correct and factual position is as follows:-
As per the information and record available with the OP No.2, the complainant firstly visited the office of answering OP on 21.04.2016 and informed the answering OP that there was a problem related to display as the display became blank and at that time, the answering OP No.2, after visual mechanical inspection issued the service report bearing Job No.JAL210416190382 to the complainant and the complainant was further told that Micro Inspection of the said phone is pending and which is to be done with Apple specified equipments and a microscope. It is pertinent to mention here that Visual Mechanical Inspection is done to check the mobile whether the mobile was not physically damaged etc. Thereafter, the engineer of the answering OP got the phone micro inspected and came to know that the mobile was found with patches on the display on the conductor as it was due to connector pin damage and there was also rust on pins were found and it is caused due to liquid damage. The Apple authorized service provider or any authorized service centre of Apple cannot give the warranty of the cell phone accessed to water/liquor due to the rough handling of the handset and unauthorized modification, therefore, the warranty of the said cell phone is finished as and when it is accessed to any kind of liquor or any physical damage. The terms and conditions were very well explained to the complainant at the time of preparation of his service report, which were duly reflected at the back/overleaf of service report and he had signed the same with his sweet will and further alleged that the complaint is frivolous and vexatious and is liable to be dismissed. On merits, the purchase of the mobile phone by the complainant is admitted but the remaining allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merit and the same may be dismissed.
6. In order to prove the case of the complainant, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence two affidavits of the complainant i.e. Ex.CA and Ex.CB alongwith some documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C12 and then closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
7. Similarly counsel for the OP No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.OP1/A alongwith some documents Ex.OP-1/1 and Ex.OP-1/2 and then closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.1 and then counsel for the OP No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.OP2/A alongwith documents Ex.OP-1 and Ex.OP-2 and closed the evidence.
8. We bestowed our thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by learned counsel for the respective parties and also scanned the case file very minutely.
9. After considering the respective submission of each counsel for the parties and from the scrutiny of the case file, it reveals that the factum in regard to purchase of the mobile set by the complainant from OP No.3 is not disputed by the OPs rather this factum is admitted that the complainant purchased iPhone on 20.09.2015 for a sum of Rs.31,000/- and further it is also admitted that the mobile phone of the complainant was deposited with the service centre i.e. OP No.2, who issued a Job Sheet, copy of the job sheet is available on the file Ex.C2 dated 26.04.2016, wherein the problem has been mentioned as “Display Blank”. Apart from that the OP has also sent an e-mail to the complainant, whereby Job Sheet was cancelled on the ground that the set is not repairable, regarding that e-mail, the complainant gave reply, which is available on the file and further OP sent an other e-mail to the complainant, which is Ex.C11, whereby complainant was informed that his phone is checked by the team and as per communication received from the team, there was un-authorized modifications found in his device as display connectors were damaged. Due to this reason, we are unable to proceed further with repair and similar plea has been taken by the OPs in their respective affidavits Ex.OP1/A and Ex.OP2/A. Apart from that the OPs also produced on the file terms and conditions of the said product. Apart from that the OP has not examined any other person, now question remains the complainant has made allegations that there is an inherent manufacturing defect in the mobile phone and accordingly he deposited the same with the OP No.2 and to establish this fact, the complainant has proved on the file Job Sheet Ex.C2 and Ex.C2 Job Sheet itself established that the mobile phone of the complainant was received by service centre i.e. OP No.2 and the problem mentioned in the Job Sheet is “Display Blank”. Now the complainant has proved his part regarding inherent problem in the mobile phone and ball has gone in the courtyard of the OPs and now it is the duty of the OPs to rebut the version of the complainant by leading cogent and convincing evidence, for that purpose, the best evidence with the OP is that the engineer/mechanic, who opened the mobile set and tested the same by way of micro specification but for the best known reason, the OP has not examined the said expert/engineer. So, with these observation, we find that the OP is not able to establish the plea as taken in their respective reply. So, with these observation, we reach to the conclusion that the complainant is entitled for the relief as claimed.
10. As an upshot of our above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant succeeds and the same is partly accepted and accordingly the OPs are directed to refund the payment of Rs.31,000/- to the complainant being a price of the mobile set with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of purchase i.e. 20.09.2015 till realization and further OPs are directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.10,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.5000/-. The entire compliance be made within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of order. Complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
11. 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 Parminder Sharma Karnail Singh
19.09.2017 Member President
