Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/120/2018

Mohan Lal - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Gaurav Bhardwaj

25 Mar 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                                     =======

                                                                             

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/120/2018
Date of Institution	:	06/03/2018
Date of Decision	:	25/03/2019

 

Mohan Lal, Set No.1, Block No.20, U.S. Club, Shimla (H.P).

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

 

1.      Apple India Pvt. Limited, 19^th Floor, Concorde Tower-C, U.B City No.24, Vittal Mallya Road, Bangalore – 560 001, through its Managing Director/Authorized Signatory.

 

2.      F-1 Info Solutions & Services Pvt. Limited, SCO 274, 1^st Floor, Sector 32, Chandigarh, through its Auth. Signatory/ Manager.

 

3.      Satellite Computers & Electronics, Computer Market, Bye-Pass Road, Khalini, Shimla, through its Proprietor.

…… Opposite Parties

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

 

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Counsel for Complainant.
	:	Sh. Devinder Kumar, Counsel for Opposite Party No.1.
	:	Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 ex-parte.

 

PER Surjeet Kaur, Member

1.         Adumbrated in brief, the facts necessary for the disposal of the instant Consumer Complaint are that the Complainant had purchased an Apple iPhone7 from Opposite Party No.3 on 18.05.2017, carrying one year warranty, for Rs.58,900/- vide invoice Annexure C-1.  During September, 2017 the iPhone in question encountered power on and blank display problem, on account of which it was deposited with Opposite Party No.2 vide job-sheet dated 11.09.2017. The iPhone was returned back after repairs by Opposite Party No.2 on 21.09.2017. However, when the same problems again surfaced, the Complainant deposited the handset with Opposite Party No.2 on 16.01.2018. Thereafter, even after repeated visits, Opposite Party No.2 neither repaired nor returned the handset to the Complainant. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties, the complainant has filed the instant Consumer Complaint.
2.         Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case. However, despite service, nobody has appeared on behalf of Opposite Parties No.2 & 3, therefore, these were proceeded against exparte on 25.04.2018.
3.         Opposite Party No.1 contested the complaint and filed its written statement, inter alia, admitting the basic facts of the case. It has been pleaded that due to some battery issue and blank display issue in the iPhone, the Complainant approached Opposite Party No.2 on 11.09.2017. Opposite Party No.2 diagnosed the said device and found that it was internally tampered, which resulted into unauthorized modification, due to the device failed VMI test. The Opposite Party No.2 informed the Complainant that his device is rendered out of warranty and so it cannot be repaired under warranty. Thereafter, on 16.01.2018, the Complainant approached Opposite Party No.2. The Opposite Party No.2 offered an out of warranty paid service, to which the Complainant denied and despite of constant reminding/requesting to collect his device back, the Complainant refused to do so. Thereafter, the Complainant never approached Opposite Party No.2 anytime for any sort of issues with the device.   Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, Opposite Party No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
5.         We have gone through the entire record and have also heard the arguments addressed by the Ld. Counsel for the Parties.
6.         It is evident from Annexure C-1 that the Complainant purchased one Apple iPhone 7 from OP-3 on 18.5.2017 after spending an amount of Rs.58,900/- which was having one year warranty. As per job sheet (Annexure C-2) dated 11.9.2017, the handset in question due to certain display problem was submitted with Opposite Party No.2 for the necessary repairs and the same was returned to the complainant after passage of time of ten days on 21.9.2017. Thereafter, on appearance of certain issue in the handset in question, the same was again submitted to Opposite Party No.2 on 16.1.2018 and since then the same is in its possession.
7.         Significantly, the Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 did not appear to contest the claim of the complainant and preferred to be proceeded against ex-parte. This act of the Opposite Parties draws an adverse inference against them. The non-appearance of the Opposite Parties shows that they have nothing to say in their defence against the allegations made by the complainant. Therefore, the assertions of the complainant go unrebutted and uncontroverted.
8.         The stand taken by Opposite Party No.1 is that certainly there was some fault in the handset, but, when the same was opened by OP-2/service centre it was found tampered. Hence, being out of warranty, the same could not be repaired under warranty.  Further it has been admitted by Opposite Party No.1 that Opposite Party No.2 offered an out of warranty period service to which complainant denied and despite various reminders, complainant himself chose not to collect his handset from Opposite Party No.2 i.e. the service centre. 
9.         In the present case, Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 never appeared and hence were proceeded ex-parte.  Since Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 have not come forward to corroborate the defence taken by OP-1/ manufacturer, therefore, the bald assertions of Opposite Party No.1 cannot be believed as such.  More so, no record/evidence has been brought on record that the handset in question was tampered with. Adding to the same, no email/message is produced on record to prove that any reminder was sent to the complainant to collect his handset.  Hence, in action on the part of Opposite Party No.1 for non-repairing the handset under warranty, non-appearance of Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 during the proceedings of the present case, non-returning the handset and keeping the same in their possession proves deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties.
10.         In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly partly allowed.  Opposite Parties are, jointly & severally, directed as under :-

1. To refund the amount of Rs.58,900/-to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of deposition of the iPhone with Opposite Party No.2 i.e. 16.01.2018, till realization.
2. To pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him;
3. To pay Rs.5,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

11.         This order be complied with by the Opposite Parties within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
12.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

 

	Sd/-	Sd/-	Sd/-
25/03/2019	[Dr.S.K.Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]	[Rattan Singh Thakur]
	Member	Member	President
“Dutt”