Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/551/2015

Neeraj Sehgal - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sanjeev Sharma

08 Jun 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/551/2015
Date of Institution	:	19/08/2015
Date of Decision	:	08/06/2016

 

Neeraj Sehgal S/o Sh. R.P. Sehgal, resident of House No.363, Sector 17, Panchkula, Haryana.

….......Complainant

V E R S U S

(1)    Apple India Pvt. Limited, having registered office at 19^th floor, Concorde Tower C, UB City, No.24, Vittal Mallya Road, Bangalore 560001, India, through its Managing Director/Authorized Signatory.

 

(2)    F1 Info Solutions & Services Pvt. Limited, having office at SCO 274, 1^st floor, Sector 32-D, Chandigarh near Nirman Cinema, through its Proprietor/ Authorized Signatory.

….....Opposite Parties

 

QUORUM:	DR.MANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                       

                                                                       

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Sanjeev Sharma, Counsel for Complainant.
	:	Sh. Vinay Kumar Pandey, Counsel for OP No.1.
	:	Opposite Party No.2 Ex-parte.

                       

PER SURJEET KAUR, MEMBER

 

1.         Sh. Neeraj Sehgal, Complainant has filed this consumer complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against Apple India Private Limited & Another, (hereinafter called the Opposite Parties), alleging that even after constantly pursuing his grievance with the Opposite Parties regarding repair/replacement of his defective Apple 4S (i Phone 8 GB), all his pleas had fallen on deaf ears.

                The Complainant has averred that he got his old iPhone 4S replaced with a brand new 4S (i Phone 8 GB) from the Opposite Party No.2 after paying the differential amount of Rs.10,970/-.  Along with the said handset, the Opposite Party No.2 did not give any box, charger and other accessories, on the pretext that as a matter of policy, the same was not given in replacement cases. It has been alleged that since soon after its purchase, the aforesaid handset confronted with problems like getting hot while talking, display problem and kept on changing shades, therefore, it was taken to Opposite Party No.2, but it (OP No.2) failed to replace/ rectify the same and had blatantly refused to do anything. It has been alleged that Opposite Party No.2 had given a repaired/refurbished handset claiming it to be a new one. Eventually, the Complainant raised his concern with the Opposite Party No.1 (Manufacturer) and had written various e-mails, but all his exercise proved to be futile since it (OP No.1) neither resolved the grievance of the Complainant nor refunded the cost price of the handset. 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 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 Party No.2, therefore, it was proceeded against ex-parte on 07.12.2015.
3.         In its written reply, Opposite Party No.1 has admitted that the Complainant earlier was using iPhone 4 and had approached Opposite Party No.2 for repairing the same, as it was beyond warranty and repairs, he was offered and provided with a replacement new iPhone on payment of the replacement cost of Rs.10,970/-. It has been further admitted that the Complainant was not provided with the box or accessories as they are only given if a new iPhone is purchased directly and not as replacement. The Complainant was aware of the same and collected the replacement new iPhone 4S when it was given to him. It has been denied that the handset started giving problems and used to get hot while talking and changed shades. While denying all other allegations and 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 record and heard the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the parties.
6.         There are two main allegations of the Complainant in the present case. Firstly, that despite paying Rs.10,970/- vide Receipt dated 01.05.2015 (Annexure C-1) along with the old iPhone, the Opposite Party No.2 issued him a brand new handset as replaced one, but it (OP No.2) did not give accessories with this new replaced handset. Secondly, that this brand new replaced handset got defective within few days of its usage and the Opposite Party No.2 refused to repair/ replace the same.  Annexure C-2 (colly) are the e-mail communications between the Complainant and the Opposite Party No.1 in the month of July, 2015, meaning thereby that the Complainant reported the defect in the replaced handset within a few days of its exchange.   
7.         The stand taken by the Opposite Party No.1 (Manufacturer) is that as per its Policy, it does not provide accessories for the replaced handset, but the same is provided only if new iPhone is purchased directly. Further, it has denied the allegation of the Complainant that the replaced handset started giving problems.
8.         So far as the allegation of the Complainant regarding non-providing of accessories with the replaced handset is concerned, it is important to note that the Complainant himself has agreed upon the Policy of the Opposite Party No.1 for exchange of the old handset with                    a brand new handset, subject to payment of cost of Rs.10,970/-. It can thus be opined that it was well within the knowledge of the Complainant that after giving old handset, he will be provided only the handset and not the accessories. Therefore, this allegation of the Complainant are devoid of any merit. 
9.         Further, the Complainant has alleged about the heating problem, green light and poor display screen in the brand new replaced handset. Annexure C-2 (colly) are the e-mail communications between the Complainant and Opposite Party No.1, which makes it crystal clear that the defects reported was well within the knowledge of Opposite Party No.1. However, there is no job-card on record for the defects reported. Therefore, we cannot opine that the handset was suffering from any manufacturing defect unless the same was inspected thoroughly by an expert after issuance of certain job-sheet. Thus, in the absence of any finding regarding manufacturing defect, the Manufacture (OP No.1) cannot be asked to reimburse the cost of the handset. 
10.         Admittedly, the iPhone was replaced by Opposite Party No.2 with a brand new handset, subject to payment of cost as asked by the Opposite Party No.1. Therefore, the Opposite Parties are liable to give after sale service to the Complainant. It is also pertinent to note that all the defects were well within the knowledge of Opposite Party No.1 as per the e-mail record (Annexure C-2 colly). Therefore, it being Manufacturer was duty bound to satisfy the Complainant by getting the defects rectified through Opposite Party No.2.
11.         Pertinently, Opposite Party No.2 did not appear to contest the claim of the complainant, and preferred to proceed against ex-parte. This act of the Opposite Party No.2 draws an adverse inference against it. The non-appearance of the Opposite Party No.2 shows that it has nothing to say in its defence against the allegations made by the complainant. Therefore, the assertions of the complainant has gone unrebutted & uncontroverted against Opposite Party No.2.  After having considered the evidence on record, we are of the opinion that non-providing of the proper services and non-rectification of the faults in the handset clearly proves deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties, which certainly caused physical and mental harassment to the Complainant. 
12.         In view of the foregoings, we are of the opinion that the complaint must succeed against Opposite Parties. Therefore, the complaint stands partly allowed against them.  The Opposite Parties are jointly & severally directed as under:-

1. To get the mobile handset of the complainant repaired, free of charge..
2. To make payment of an amount of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant towards compensation for mental & physical harassment.
3. To pay Rs.3,000/- towards litigation expenses.

 

                This order shall be complied with by the Opposite Parties within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall be liable to pay the awarded amount of Rs.5,000/- along with interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing this complaint till realization, apart from complying with the directions as at Sr. No.(i) & (iii) above.

13.

Announced

08/06/2016                                                       

Sd/-

(DR.MANJIT SINGH)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(SURJEET KAUR)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)                                                                                                      MEMBER

“Dutt”