Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 465
Instituted on : 12.08.2022
Decided on : 04.05.2023
Divyam Panghal age 27 years s/o Rajesh Kumar Panghal, R/o H.No.1, Opp. Canara Bank, VPO Maina, Rohtak 124021 .
.......................Complainant.
Vs.
- Apple India Pvt. Ltd., 19th Floor, Concord Tower C, UB City, No.24, Vittal Malya Road, Bengaluru, Karnataka-560001 through its Managing Director/Manager.
- DIGICARE Services Apple Rohtak at Shop no. 106 First Floor, Sheetal Life Style Mall D-Park Rohtak-124001, (Authorized service center of Apple India).
……….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.Nishant Sikri, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. R.K.Jangra, Advocate for opposite party No. 1.
Opposite party No. 2 given up.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case, as per the complainant are that he had purchased a mobile iphone 13 128GB color Blue vide IMEI No.358288944413151 on 18.11.2021 for a consideration of Rs.79900/- via invoice no.TI/RT/2122/7152 from official sales store of Apple company. Complainant used the said mobile phone as per guidelines and instructions for use by manufacturer i.e. opposite party No.1 and the same worked only for some days and the complainant faced some problems in the laptop. The alleged laptop started giving problems like “hanging, apps used to close on their own and calls did not appear on the screen which repeatedly used to freeze”. The device stopped responding and due to the said defect, the complainant was unable to use the mobile in any manner. The mobile phone also created a lot of error cache files on its own which further slowed down the device a lot. The complainant requested the opposite party no.2 to remove the said defect. Complainant also complaint to opposite party No.1 through emails and visited the opposite party No.2 but they merely formatted the software of the iPhone and returned it without any other assistance. Upon demanding the job sheet of the work done on the phone, they flatly refused for the same. Complainant again approached the service center on 31.03.2022 but this time also the phone was returned after resetting the software. Complainant was also forced to remove his screen guards from the front and back of phone and had suffered loss to the tune of Rs.1200/-. After some days the issues returned back and all the applications started crashing. Complainant again contacted the service centre on 10.06.2022 and this time also they returned it in the same condition without doing absolutely anything to resolve the issues. The complainant requested them either to resolve these issues or to replace the mobile with new one.. But there was no solution to his problems and any heed was not paid to his request. 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 pay the invoice amount of unit i.e Rs.79900/- along with interest @24% p.m. from the date of purchase and also to pay an amount of Rs.100,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony & harassment and Rs.51000/- 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 approached the opposite party No.2 only on 31.03.2022 and the complainant has failed to substantiate or provide any documentary evidence to prove that he had approached the opposite party No.2 on any previous occasion. Further the complainant had contacted the customer care support team of opposite party No.1 only on 10.06.2022 which is nearly after 3 months of raising his first issue with opposite party No.2. It is further submitted that on 31.03.2022, as per the service report provided to the complainant, after the diagnosis of the subject phone, no issue was found and the same was acknowledged by the complainant. The request for removal of other Manufacturer’s screen guard was made in order to effectively carry out the diagnosis operation of the subject phone and is a standard practice followed before repairs. Opposite party No.1 is not liable for the alleged loss incurred by the complainant due to removal of such screen guard. It is submitted that the complainant had approached the opposite party only on two occasions, i.e. via an email dated 04th March 2022 and via customer care support on 10th June 2022. On both these occasions, the complainant was provided with a response with a view to redress his grievance. The conduct of the opposite party No.1 throughout has been supportive towards the complainant and in absence of any documentary proof to the contrary, the claim of deficiency in service by opposite party no.1 is liable to be rejected. 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, opposite party no. 2 was been given up by complainant vide his separate statement dated 19.01.2023.
3. Complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C10 and has closed his evidence on dated 19.01.2023. Ld. counsel for the opposite party No. 1 has tendered document Ex. RW1/A, and closed his evidence on dated 20.02.2023.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the written submissions filed by ld. counsel for opposite party no.1 as well as material aspects of the case very carefully.
6. In the present case it is not disputed that complainant purchased an APPLE iPhone on 18.11.2021 for a sum of Rs.79,900/- as is proved from the bill Ex.C1. As per email Ex.C2 dated 04.03.2022 there was problem of ‘hanging, freezing and applications automatically close’ in the alleged mobile. But the opposite party merely sent the reply Ex.C3 and had advised the complainant to contact with their representative telephonically. As per Repair Acceptance Form Ex.C4 dated 31.03.2022, there was problem of “Device hanging and app crush issue” but as per service report Ex.C5, the opposite party has closed the complaint on the same day on the ground “As per diagnose no issue found in device, Restore and updated device”. As per service report Ex.C7 dated 10.06.2022, there was again problem of “App crash issue” and this time also the connection was “restored and updated”. Ex.C9 dated 10.06.2022 and Ex.C10 dated 25.11.2022 are the automated emails sent by the opposite parties. But the defect was not removed by the opposite parties. Opposite party No.1 updated the software and returned the unit to customer. But despite repeated requests made by the complainant, his mobile has not been repaired by the opposite parties within warranty period. On the other hand, opposite parties failed to prove the fact that the complainant had verified and acknowledged that the said mobile was working fine, on the delivery report while receiving the mobile from the opposite party No.2 as no such document has been placed on record by the opposite parties nor such endorsement has been made by the complainant on the job sheets placed on record by the complainant Ex.C4 to Ex.C5 and the complainant has merely signed the same. It is also observed that the Apple is a renowned company of such worldwide stature and the consumer purchases its costly products after impressing by its name and fame and for long time utilization of the same under the impression that the such costly products/mobiles/laptop etc. 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 in question within warranty period amounts to deficiency in service and opposite party no.1 being the manufacturer is liable to refund the price of mobile set to the complainant after deducting the depreciation of 15% on it i.e. Rs.67915/-.
7. 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.67915/-(Rupees sixty seven thousand nine hundred and fifteen only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e.12.08.2022 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:
04.05.2023.
.....................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Tripti Pannu, Member
……………………………….
Vijender Singh, Member
