Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 508
Instituted on : 03.09.2021
Decided on : 25.08.2022.
Neeru Arya age-45 years w/o Sh. Aflatoon Mothsra R/o H.No. 109/22 Laxmi Nagar, Sonipat Road, Rohtak-124001
.......................Complainant.
Vs.
- Apple India Private Limited, 19th Floor, Concorde Tower C, UB City No.24, Vittal Mallya Road, Bangalore,560001
- DIGICARE Services Apple Rohtak(ASP) Shop No. 106, First Floor Sheetal Lifestyle Mall, D-Park, Rohtak-124001, Haryana.
……….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: Shri Manu Ahlawat, Advocate for the complainant.
Shri Kunal Juneja, Advocate for opposite party No. 1.
Opposite party No. 2 already exparte.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case as per complainant are that he had purchased an apple mobile phone[MWC92HN/A] iPhone 11 Pro 256 GB Gold(Serial/IMEI No. SF17CT0V0N6Y8) from “iNvent Rohtak, Apple premium reseller, Rohtak on 24.09.2020 amounting to Rs.1,18,300/- with a warranty of one year by the manufacturer. On 07.08.2021, the mobile suddenly stopped functioning and the phone screen went blank. The complainant in order to fix the issue on the device approached to opposite party no. 2 where they created a service report mentioning remarks “heavy dents on near power button and scratches on device internal not checked”. The said phone was taken under custody by the service team and was sent to opposite party no. 1 for further necessary action in order to get the problem solved. On 12.08.2021, the phone was returned to complainant by the opposite parties alongwith a product service summary report by opposite party no.2, wherein it was mentioned that the product is ineligible for service. The reason of not working of the mobile phone was mentioned in the summary is that : “because of unauthorized modifications that were made to the mobile phone and does not covered under warranty”. It is further submitted by the complainant that neither any unnecessary modifications were made to the mobile by him nor any dents were visible on the phone. The device stopped working due to some internal error/problem that is beyond the control of the complainant and the complainant without any delay approached the opposite parties in order to get the problem resolved. But opposite parties did not pay any heed to the request of complainant. As such, there is 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 an amount of Rs.1,18,300/- and Rs.11,000/- as litigation charges to the complainant as explained in relief clause.
2. After registration of complaint, notices were issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party No. 1 in their reply has submitted that complainant had purchased the alleged device on 24.09.2020 with one year warranty. The complainant alleged that he had some issue with the device as it was not working and he approached the opposite party no. 2 on 10.08.2021. The opposite party no. 2 sent the said device to be checked at the Centralized Repair Centre(RC) of the opposite party no. 1. Upon inspection, it was confirmed that the said device had unauthorized modifications and it was out of warranty coverage, due to the same. The service/repair under warranty was denied to the complainant as his device had breached the warranty and it was given back to him.. It is further submitted that liability of a manufacturer arises only when there is inherent defect in the product when the said product was manufacturer and it is settled position of law that manufacturer cannot be made liable until it is proved by adducing expert evidence that there was any manufacturing defect in the product. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party No. 1 prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs. Notice issued to opposite party no. 2 received back duly served but none has appeared on his behalf as such, opposite party no. 2 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 05.04.2022 of this Commission.
3. Ld. Counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C3 and closed his evidence on dated 19.04.2022. Ld. Counsel for the opposite party No. 1 in his evidence has tendered his affidavit Ex.RW-1/A, documents Ex. R1 to Ex. R2 and closed his evidence on dated 13.06.2022.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. As per bill Ex.C1 complainant purchased the mobile in question for Rs.118300/- on dated 24.09.2020. As per copy of service report Ex.C2 dated 07.08.2021, problem reported by consumer is “device not power on’ and condition of equipment is ‘heavy dents on near power button and scratches on device internal not checked’. As per the product service summary issued by the opposite party No.1, it is mentioned that : “Our technicians carefully inspected the product you sent to us. They determined that the product is ineligible for service so we are returning it to you” and it is further mentioned in the summary that : “The reason your product is not working is because of unauthorized modifications that were made to it. Our warranty does not cover issued caused by unauthorized modifications”. But the opposite party has not mentioned in the alleged summary that what modifications were made to it. Without opening the mobile phone they have mentioned that there were heavy dents near power button and have presumed that there were unauthorized modification. No specific report has been placed on record to prove that what type of modification was made in the mobile i.e. whether technical or mechanical and how they were not covered under the warranty. It is also on record that the mobile in question could not be repaired by the opposite party within warranty period. As such there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and opposite party No.1 being manufacturer is liable to refund the price of mobile phone after deduction of 20% depreciation on it, as the complainant has used the mobile phone uninterruptedly for 10 months i.e. to pay Rs.118300/- less 20% = Rs.94640/-.
6. In view of the fact and circumstances of the case we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party No.1 to pay the amount of Rs.94640/-(Rupees ninety four thousand six hundred and forty only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 03.09.2021 till its realsiation 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 party No.1 at the time of making the payment by the opposite party No.1.
8. 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:
25.08.2022.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
………………………………..
Tripti Pannu, Member.
………………………………..
Vijender Singh, Member.
