Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/534/2018

Gurdeep Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Ramanpreet Singh

31 Oct 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                                     =======

                                                                             

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/534/2018
Date of Institution	:	26/10/2018
Date of Decision	:	31/10/2019

 

Gurdeep Kaur D/o  Sh. Raghvir Singh, R/o H.No.3432, Sector 71, Mohali.

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

 

[1]     Apple India Pvt. Limited, No.24, 19^th Floor, Concorde Tower-C, U.B. City, Vittal Mallya Road, Bangalore – 560001, through its Managing Director/ Director.

 

[2]     Anmol Smart Store, SCO 1043, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh, through its Proprietor.

…… Opposite Parties

QUORUM:	RATTAN SINGH THAKUR	PRESIDENT
	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	DR.S.K.SARDANA	MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Ramanpreet Singh, Counsel for Complainant.
	:	Sh. Devinder Kumar, Counsel for Opposite Party No.1.
	:	Opposite Party No.2 ex-parte.

 

Per Dr.S.K.Sardana, Member

1.         Adumbrated in brief, the facts necessary for the disposal of the instant Consumer Complaint are, the Complainant bought Apple iPhone 6, 32 GB of Space Gray Colour worth Rs.30,700/- from Opposite Party No.2 on 01.04.2017 by financing the same from HDFC Bank. In the month of January 2018, said iPhone had blocked Complainant’s apple ID and the iPhone stopped working. The Complainant went to the Apple Store a number of times as the iPhone was still in warranty period, but without any results. The Complainant also went to the Opposite Party No.2, but to no avail. Eventually, the Complainant went to Apple Customer Care where she was given the reason that her Apple I.D was blocked as she had mailed them to stop her I.D or if she had not done that, then she must have stolen the iPhone. The Complainant even showed the original bill of the iPhone to the Customer Care, but to no success. Thereafter, wasting no time, on 12.09.2018, the Complainant sent mails to the Opposite Parties regarding her problem, but the same was not addressed. With the cup of woes brimming, the Complainant has filed the instant Consumer Complaint, alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties.
2.         Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case.
3.         Despite service, nobody has appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.2, therefore, it was proceeded against ex-parte.
4.         Opposite Party No.1 contested the complaint and filed its written version, inter alia, pleading that the alleged damage caused to the iPhone was on account of the negligent misuse by the Complainant which rendered the iPhone out of warranty and thus the said alleged damage is not attributable to the answering Opposite Party. In the end, pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice qua answering Opposite Party, a prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint.
5.         Rejoinder was filed by the complainant denying all the averments in the written statement of Opposite Party No.1.
6.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
7.         We have gone through the entire evidence and heard the arguments addressed by the Learned Counsel for the Parties.
8.         The main grievance of the Complainant is that the iPhone in question was purchased by her on 01.04.2017 stopped working in the month of Jan. 2018 due to blockage of his Apple I.D. and inspite of contacting the Opposite Parties on many occasions, they have failed to redress her grievance.
9.         The stand taken by the Opposite Party No.1 that consumers who willfully destroy, damage or negligently handle a product are not eligible to claim any relief under the Act, does not appeared to be convincing to us, as the product in question is not found to be damaged, rather it was only the Complainant’s Apple I.D. which was got blocked. Moreover, the Opposite Party No.1 has miserably failed to adduce any documentary evidence in support of its claim like receipt of any complaint from anybody else other than the Complainant due to which they have blocked the Apple I.D.   
10.         In the present circumstances, it is established beyond all reasonable doubts that the complaint of the Complainant is genuine as she has been made to run from pillar to post for no fault on her part. The harassment suffered by the Complainant is also writ large. The Opposite Party No.1 has certainly and definitely indulged into unfair trade practice as it ought to have initiate steps to redress the grievance of the Complainant promptly, which they failed to do. At any rate, the Opposite Party No.1 even did not bother to redress the grievance of the Complainant, despite having approached for the same by the Complainant time & again. 
11.         It is important to note that due to the irresponsible attitude of the Opposite Party No.1, the Complainant has certainly suffered a lot. We feel that it was the duty of the Opposite Party No.1 to satisfy the Complainant by getting her grievance redressed, promptly, but it has miserably failed to do and rather propelled this unwarranted, uncalled for litigation upon the Complainant. Therefore, the act of the Opposite Party No.1 in not redressing the grievance of the Complainant, especially when the matter was brought to its knowledge and the iPhone in question is within the warranty period, proves deficiency in service on its part, which certainly has caused immense, mental and physical harassment to the complainant.
12.         For the reasons recorded above, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Party No.1, and the same is partly allowed qua it. The Opposite Party No.1 is directed:-

[a]    To unblock the Apple I.D of the Complainant;

[b]    To pay Rs.2500/- as compensation to the complainant for deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and harassment caused to her.

[c]    To also pay a sum of Rs.2500/- to the complainant as litigation expenses. 

                The complaint against Opposite Party No.2 fails and is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. 

 

13.         The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Party No.1; thereafter, Opposite Party No.1 shall be liable for an interest @12% per annum on the amounts mentioned in sub-para [b] & [c] above from the date of institution of this complaint, till these are paid, apart from compliance of the directions as in sub-para [a].
14.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

 

	Sd/-	Sd/-	Sd/-
31/10/2019	[Dr.S.K.Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]	[Rattan Singh Thakur]
	Member	Member	President
“Dutt”