Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 161
Instituted on : 24.03.2023
Decided on : 23.01.2024
Annu s/o Sh. Jai Singh R/o Village Bedwa, Tehsil Meham, District Rohtak.
.......................Complainant.
Vs.
- Apple India Pvt. Ltd., registered address at:- #19th Floor, Concorde Tower, UB City, No.24, VittalMallya Road,Bengalore, Through its Manager.
- Apple Rohtak(ASP) # Shop No.106, First Floor, Sheetal Life Style Mall, Rohtak-124001, Through its Manager.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 35 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR. VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER
Present: Sh.SunilHooda, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.R.K.Jangra, Advocate for opposite party No. 1.
Sh.DevkiNandan Sharma, Advocate for opposite party No.2.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case, as per the complainant are that he purchased a cell phone by the name of Iphone 13-128GBon 10.01.2022 from the authorized reseller of opposite party No.1 and the same was manufactured by opposite party No.1. The alleged phone was insured for physical damages vide agreement no.325416969263 mentioning hardware no.C9W2L2C957. The phone was completely covered for all types of malfunction and damagesupto 10.01.2023. On 07.01.2023 the cell phone of the complainant accidently fell on the road and stopped working as the same was not turning on. Complainant duly deposited his phone with the opposite party No.2 on the same day but he did not receive any message about the repair status of the phone from the side of opposite party No.2. On 19.01.2023 the complainant went to opposite party No.2 for enquiring about the repair status. He was surprised to learn that the repairs have not been made. He was given a paper mentioning that “UNIT RETURNED BER FROM RC” as reason for non-repair, which means that the refusal is based on outside unauthorized repair to the phone. The complainant told the opposite party no.2 that the phone always worked properly and he has brought the same to them immediately after its malfunction. He also told that the phone is well within warranty, then why he will pay anybody for repairs. Complainant also sent a legal notice through his advocate on 23.02.2023 asking the opposite parties to repair the phone of the complainant. In reply to the same opposite party no.2 has submitted that the phone was having water damage and this is the reason of refusal for repairs. The opposite parties are liable to repair or replace the same as per policy. But the returning of phone without any repair is clearly a deficiency in service on their part. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to repair or replace the phone or in alternate to pay rupees 79900/- i.e. price of phone alongwith Rs.8499/-(Apple Care amount), alongwithRs.11000/- on account of mental agony and harassment and Rs.11000/- 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 was given an option of “out of warranty’ repair i.e. the complainant could make the payment of full cost of the subject iPhone and in return be provided with a new device since the subject iPhone could not be repaired. It is stated that no response was received from the complainant and the subject iPhone was collected from OP2 on 19.01.2023 by the complainant.. The complainant has claimed that he had purchased an Apple Care+Plan (ACP+) for the subject IPhone which provides cover against accidental damage from unexpected and unintentional external event(Such as, drops and damage caused by liquid contact), subject to payment of the service feeas provided in the terms and conditions. It is stated that while the ACP + cover provides services in respect of accidental damage to the device, the same is not applicable in case the covered equipment has been opened, serviced, modified, installed or altered by anyone other than Apple or an authorised representative of Apple…”. It is submitted that after having conducted an inspection into the subject iPhone, it was found that the subject iPhone had been subjected to unauthorized modifications. Accordingly, even the ACP+ terms and conditions could not be made applicable in the present case. Therefore, no services could be provided to 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.
3. Opposite party No.2 in its reply has submitted that complainant has prayed for replacement of phone or to return the invoice price of mobile which is not maintainable against the opposite party No.2. A bare perusal of the complaint demonstrates that no cause of action lies against the opposite party No.2 with respect to the reliefs being claimed by the complainant. The opposite party No.2 was only providing repair services to the customer of the opposite party No.1 and no any consideration was paid by the complainant to the opposite party No.2. It is submitted that opposite party No.2 is only authorized to repair any device free of cost which is covered under terms of the warranty. In the present case, since opposite party no.1 has found there is an unauthorized modification in the said device, opposite party No.2 is not obligated to repair the device free of cost. The complainant herself has admitted in complaint that opposite party No.2 offered to repair the device on chargeable basis, hence there is no deficiency in the service of opposite party No.2.All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
3. Complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C8 and has closed his evidence on dated 07.08.2023. Ld. counsel for the opposite party No. 1 has tendered affidavit Ex.DW1/A, documents Ex.DW1/1 to Ex.DW1/3 and closed his evidence on 09.10.2023. Opposite party No.2 in its evidence has tendered affidavit Ex. RW2/A, documents Ex.RW2/1 and closed his evidence on dated 18.09.2023.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the written submission filed by ld. Counsel for the opposite party No.1 & 2 as well as material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. In the present case it is not disputed that complainant had purchased a mobile phone for a sum of Rs.79900/-as is proved from the bill Ex.C1 dated 10.01.2022.As per Ex.C2, he has also taken insurance cover for the alleged phone and the coverage end date is 10 Jan 2023. As per job sheet Ex.C3 dated 07.01.2023, there was problem of ‘device not power on’ and the mobile was within warranty. As per job sheet Ex.C4, the unit was returned to the complainant with the remarks “Unit Returned BER FROM RC”. As per Ex.C5, opposite party No.2 has submitted that :“The reason that product was not working was because of unauthorized modifications that were made to it. Their warranty does not cover issues caused by unauthorized modifications”. Whereas as per reply to the legal notice Ex.C7, the opposite parties has submitted that the opposite party sent the device to apple RC and Apple RC team checked and found liquid damage. Hence the above documents shows that the opposite parties have taken the different stands in reply and legal notice. As per reply opposite party No.1 has submitted that “ACP+ covers/ provides services in respect of accidental damage to the device, the same is not applicable in case the covered Equipment has been opened, serviced, modified, installed or altered by anyone other than apple or an authorized representative of Apple…..”. It is further submitted that after having conducted an inspection into the subject iPhone, it was found that the subject iPhone had been subjected to unauthorized modifications. Hence no service was provided to the complainant. But to prove the fact that there was any unauthorized modification or liquid damage in the mobile in question, no document is placed on record by the opposite parties. Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and opposite party No.1 being the manufacturer is liable, to refund the price of mobile phone after deduction of 20% depreciation on it, as the complainant has used the mobile set uninterruptedly for 11 months i.e. to pay Rs.63920/-(Rs.79900/- less 20%).
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.63920/-(Rupees sixty three thousand nine hundred and twenty only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e.24.03.2023 till its realization and shall also pay Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only 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:
23.01.2024
.....................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
TriptiPannu, Member
……………………………….
Vijender Singh, Member
