Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/688/2021

Gurvinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Akash Yadav

01 May 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/688/2021
Date of Institution	:	08/10/2021
Date of Decision	:	01/05/2023

 

Gurvinder Singh s/o Sh. Manjit Singh, resident of House No.1426/A, Sector 37-B, Chandigarh.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. Apple India Pvt. Ltd. 19 Floor, Concorde Tower C, UB City No.24, Vittal Mallya Road, Bangalore 560001.
2. Unicorn Infosolutions Pvt. Ltd., SCO No.315-316, Ground Floor, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh 160002.

… Opposite Parties

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER

               

ARGUED BY	:	None for complainant
	:	Sh. Devinder Kumar, Counsel for OP-1
	:	Sh. Paras Mehra, Manager/Representative of OP-2

 

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1. The present consumer complaint has been filed by Sh.Gurvinder Singh, complainant against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as the OPs).  The brief facts of the case are as under :-

1. It transpires from the allegations as projected in the consumer complaint that vide invoice 9.10.2019 (Annexure C-1), complainant had purchased an Apple I-phone 11 Pro (hereinafter referred to as “subject phone”) for an amount of $1795.57 (₹95,165/-).  The subject phone had come with global warranty of 12 months from the date of purchase. However, the complainant further got extended warranty for additional 12 months by paying an amount of ₹4,500/- vide extended warranty plan valid upto 9.10.2021 (Annexure C-2).  In the month of May 2021, complainant started facing problem with the subject phone as intermittently the sim card was not detected despite being inserted in the phone. Thereafter, the complainant visited the authorised Apple care service centre (OP-2) and addressed his issue before the concerned person and on checking of the subject phone, complainant was informed by the said person that the problem occurred due to outdated software.  Accordingly, software of the subject phone was updated and the same was returned to the complainant. Thereafter when the said problem continued, complainant again visited OP-2 who, after inspecting the subject phone, had informed him that the same will be forwarded to Bangalore for further inspection and accordingly job card dated 21.6.2021 (Annexure C-3) was given to the complainant. On 2.7.2021, complainant was telephonically informed that his phone is not working because of the unauthorised modification in the same and the OPs cannot fix the problem under warranty as the same does not cover issues caused by unauthorised modification. In fact, there was no unauthorized modification by the complainant as the subject phone was directly brought to OP-2 by the complainant and thereafter the same was sent to Bangalore for inspection and in order to escape from their liability, OPs have raised false defence that unauthorized modification was noticed in the subject phone, despite of the fact that the said problem was found under warranty period. It is further alleged that in fact the warranty plan taken by the complainant was valid till 9.10.2021 and the said problem was noticed before expiration of the warranty period. Thereafter the complainant had issued legal notice dated 7.8.2021 (Annexure C-4) to the OPs, but, despite of that nothing has been done by the OPs. The aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. OPs were requested several times to admit the claim, but, with no result.  Hence, the present consumer complaint.
2. OPs resisted the consumer complaint and filed their separate written versions.  In its written version,
   OP-1 inter alia, took preliminary objections of maintainability and concealment of facts.  It is alleged that in fact the consumer complaint of the complainant is not maintainable as he himself has concealed material facts from the Commission by not disclosing that he himself had made unauthorised modification in the subject phone, as a result of which the problem faced by the complainant in the subject phone was not covered under the warranty plan. It is further alleged that in fact the subject phone was sent to OP-1 by OP-2 when the complainant approached OP-2 for its repair and when the subject phone was checked by OP-1, it was found that there was unauthorized modification in the subject phone, as a result of which the same was not covered under the scheme and accordingly the complainant was informed about the said fact and he himself had collected his device back.  On merits, it is admitted that the subject phone was sold to the complainant with one year warranty and the same was extended for further 12 months by the answering OP on payment of ₹4,500/- as additional amount.  However, it is denied that the answering OP had wrongly returned the subject phone to the complainant by not giving benefit under the warranty plan to him by alleging that in fact due to unauthorized modification noticed in the subject phone, the same was returned to the complainant as the same was not covered due to the violation of warranty terms.  On merits, the facts as stated in the preliminary objections have been reiterated. The cause of action set up by the complainant is denied.  The consumer complaint is sought to be contested.
3. In its written version, OP-2 inter alia, took preliminary objections of maintainability and suppression of facts.  It is also alleged that as per the terms and conditions of the warranty agreement, in case material damage is caused to the device within the warranty period, same will not be covered under the warranty services.   On merits, the facts as stated in the preliminary objections have been reiterated. The cause of action set up by the complainant is denied.  The consumer complaint is sought to be contested.
4. Despite grant of sufficient opportunity, rejoinder was not filed by the complainant to rebut the stand of the OPs.

2. In order to prove their case, parties have tendered/proved their evidence by way of respective affidavits and supporting documents.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for OP-1, representative of OP-2 and also gone through the file carefully.
   1. At the very outset, it may be observed that when it is an admitted case of the parties that the complainant had purchased the subject phone, having global warranty of 12 months from the date of purchase i.e. 9.10.2019, as is also evident from Annexure C-1, with extended warranty for additional 12 months by paying an amount of ₹4,500/-, as is also evident from Annexure C-2, and further that on noticing certain problems in the subject phone, complainant had approached OP-2 for its repair and when the said problem continued, complainant again approached OP-2 on 21.6.2021 and after inspecting the same, subject phone was sent to the repair centre of OP-1 at Bangalore, as is also evident from the service report (Annexure C-3), the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if OPs are unjustified in repudiating the claim of the complainant despite of the fact that the same was covered under the warranty period and the said act of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and the complainant is entitled for the reliefs prayed for in the consumer complaint, as is the case of the complainant, or if the complainant himself has violated the terms & conditions of warranty and the consumer complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed, as is the defence of the OPs. 
   2. Perusal of the invoice (Annexure C-1) clearly indicates that the complainant had purchased the subject phone from Apple Square One, Ontario on 9.10.2019. Annexure C-2 further indicates that the complainant had also got the extended warranty for additional 12 months by paying an amount of ₹4,500/- to the OP, which fact has otherwise not been disputed by the OPs.  Thus, it is clear that the complainant was having two years warranty on the subject phone w.e.f 9.10.2019 and the same was valid till 8.10.2021.  It is further an admitted case of the parties that the problem in the subject phone was faced by the complainant in the month of June 2021 i.e. within the warranty period, as is also evident from job card/service report (Annexure C-3).
   3. As per the case of the complainant, as the problem in the subject phone was noticed within the warranty period, and the complainant had also handed over the same to the OPs within the said period, OPs have wrongly returned the subject phone to the complainant on the ground that an unauthorised modification was found in the subject phone as a result of which, it was not covered under the warranty and as the complainant had never got any unauthorized modification in the subject phone, OPs are liable either to replace the subject phone or to refund the entire amount i.e. sale consideration alongwith compensation etc.
   4. The consumer complaint is strongly resisted by the OPs on the ground that in fact the subject phone was returned to the complainant by the OPs only when unauthorized modification in the same was noticed by the repair team, which is a clear violation of the warranty terms and the consumer complaint is not maintainable.
   5. In the backdrop of the foregoing admitted and disputed facts on record, one thing is clear that the entire case of the parties is revolving around the fact if any unauthorized modification was found in the subject phone and the same is violation of the terms and conditions of the warranty. 
   6. So far as unauthorised modification in the subject phone is concerned, the same stands proved by the OPs through inspection report/contact information (Annexure R-2/1), perusal of which clearly indicates details of the subject phone with customer’s name as that of complainant and specifically mentioned the condition of the subject phone as “unauthorized modification”. Thus, one thing is clear on record that unauthorized modification was noticed by the service team of OP-1 in the subject phone when the same was received by OP-1 from the complainant.
   7. Now the second question that arises for determination is if the unauthorized modification by the customer in the subject phone amounts to violation of the terms and conditions of warranty and for that purpose, relevant portion of the warranty is required to be scanned carefully which is reproduced below for ready reference :-

       “This Warranty does not apply: (a) to consumable parts, such as batteries or protective coatings that are designed to diminish over time, unless failure has occurred due to a defect in materials or workmanship; (b) to cosmetic damage, including but not limited to scratches, dents and broken plastic on ports unless failure has occurred due to a defect in materials or workmanship; (c) to damage caused by use with a third party component or product that does not meet the Apple Product’s specifications (Apple Product specifications are available at www.apple.com under the technical specifications for each product and also available in stores); (d) to damage caused by accident, abuse, misuse, fire, earthquake or other external cause; (e) to damage caused by operating the Apple Product outside Apple’s published guidelines; (f) to damage caused by service (including upgrades and expansions) performed by anyone who is not a representative of Apple or an Apple Authorized Service Provider (“AASP”); (g) to an Apple Product that has been modified to alter functionality or capability without the written permission of Apple; (h) to defects caused by normal wear and tear or otherwise due to the normal aging of the Apple Product, (i) if any serial number has been removed or defaced from the Apple Product, or (j) if Apple receives information from relevant public authorities that the product has been stolen or if you are unable to deactivate passcode-enabled or other security measures designed to prevent unauthorized access to the Apple Product, and you cannot prove in any way that you are the authorized user of the product (e.g., by presenting proof of purchase).”

Thus, one thing is further clear from the terms & conditions of warranty that in case an Apple product has been modified to alter functionality or capability without the written permission of Apple, same is not covered under warranty.

8. In the case in hand, as it stands proved on record that the subject phone was found by the OPs with unauthorized modification by the customer (complainant), same is clear violation of the terms & conditions of warranty, as a result of which the subject phone comes out of warranty.  Hence, it is safe to hold that the complainant has miserably failed to prove any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs and the present consumer complaint deserves to fail.

4. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
5. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

Announced 01/05/2023 hg			Sd/- [Pawanjit Singh] President
			Sd/- [Surjeet Kaur] Member