Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/780/2015

Paramjeet Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Shiv Charan Bhola

09 May 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/780/2015
Date  of  Institution	:	23/11/2015
Date   of   Decision	:	09/05/2017

 

 

 

 

 

Paramjeet Singh S/o Balbir Singh, R/o H.No. 346, Gillico Heights, Gillco Valley, Kharar District S.A.S. Nagar (Mohali).

……… Complainant.

 

Versus

 

[1]  Apple India Private Limited, 19 Floor, Concorde Tower C, UB City No.24, Vittal Mallya Road, Bangalore – 560001, Karnataka, through its Managing Director.

 

[2]  Paramatrix Info Solutions Pvt. Limited, SCO 112-113 (GF), Sector 34-A, Chandigarh, through its Director.

 

[3]  Aggarwal Communications, SCO 105, Sector 35-C, Chandigarh, through its Proprietor.

 ……. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:   SH. S.S. PANESAR             PRESIDENT

SMT.SURJEET KAUR             MEMBER

          SH. SURESH KUMAR SARDANA     MEMBER

 

For Complainant	:	Sh. Shiv Charan Bhola, Advocate.
For OP No.1	:	Sh. Deepak Jain, Advocate.
For OP No.2	:	Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate.
For OP No.3	:	None.

 

PER SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, MEMBER

 

          Put in brief, the facts of the case are that the Complainant had purchased an iPhone 4S from Opposite Party No.3 for an amount of Rs.31,500/- vide Bill No. 15439 dated 12.05.2014. On 15.05.2014, due to speaker relating problem the Complainant approached the Opposite Party No.2 (Authorized Service Centre), who on 21.05.2014 replaced the same with another iPhone. However, on 23.05.2014 and 24.05.2014, the Complainant noticed that the charging jack of the said iPhone was not working. Accordingly, he again approached the Opposite Party No.2, who assured to redress his concern within 5-7 days. However, when nothing positive could come out and the Opposite Party No.1 refused to provide the new iPhone, the Complainant got serviced a legal notice dated 23.06.2014, which also did not fructify. Hence, alleging the aforesaid act & conduct of the Opposite Parties as deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the Complainant has filed the present Complaint.

 

2.      Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case.

 

3.      Opposite Party No.1 resisted the complaint by filing its written reply, inter alia, pleading that on 15.05.2014 the Complainant had approached the Opposite Party No.2 with regard to issues in his iPhone, as it was within the provisions of the warranty, it was replaced with a new iPhone of the same make on 21.05.2014. It was urged that the Complainant’s iPhone had failed the inspection as the Opposite Party No.2 found illegal tampering in it done by the Complainant due to which it was rendered out of warranty and could not be repaired, hence he was offered a replacement on replacement cost, but he refused to collect the iPhone. Denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service on its part, Opposite Party No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

 

4.      Opposite Party No.2 in its reply has pleaded that the Complainant visited them on 15.05.2014 with call receiver and speech related problem. On the approval from the Apple India (Manufacturer of the Handset), the device was replaced on 21.05.2014. Thereafter, on 09.06.2014, the Complainant approached the answering Opposite Party with the problem in charging Jack. On diagnosis, the device component test fail as it was found already modified, opened and tempered. Hence, replacement/ repair of the device was rejected by the answering Opposite Party. Thereafter, the Complainant was called several times to take the delivery of the product, but when he did not turn up, a sent notice dated 10.09.2015 was also sent to him to take delivery of the handset. Even an e-mail dated 16.09.2015 was also sent to the Complainant to take the delivery of the handset, but he chose to file the instant consumer Complaint falsely implicating the answering Opposite Party. Denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service on its part, Opposite Party No.2 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

 

5.      Opposite Party No.3 filed its separate written statement, inter alia, pleading that it is only a Retailer and not the Service Provider. Moreover, after sale, warranty is covered by the Company Service Centre for 1 year and replacement, if any, is the responsibility of the manufacturer or the concerned service centre. Denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service on its part, Opposite Party No.3 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

 

6.      Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record in support of their contentions.

 

7.      We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and have also perused the record.

 

8.      The claim of the Complainant is that he purchased iPhone and soon after its purchase, it was encountered with call receiver and speech related problems. The Complainant visited Opposite Party No.2 on 15.05.2014 and upon confirmation of the aforesaid problems, the device in question was replaced on approval from the Opposite Party No.1 on 21.05.2014 vide delivery report Annexure C-2. Thereafter, on 09.06.2014, the Complainant again approached the Opposite Party No.2 with the problem in charging jack. This time, on diagnose, the device was found to be opened and tempered with, hence the repair/replacement was refused vide service report Annexure C-3. It is important to note that as per the terms & conditions of the warranty (Annexure OP/2/1), if the device/handset under warranty is modified, opened or tempered with then device/handset lost warranty. In the present case, since the device was found already modified, opened and tempered, the device lost its warranty, and the Complainant was required to pay for its repair/ replacement, as the case may be. It has come on record that the Opposite Party No.2 called the Complainant number of times and even sent notice dated 10.09.2015 and e-mail dated 16.09.2015, to take the delivery of the handset, but neither he nor his authorized person took the delivery of the handset. To cap it all, the Opposite Party No.2 has placed on record copies of the notice, postal receipt and e-mail as Annexures OP/2/2 to OP/2/4. Thus, we find that the whole gamut of facts and circumstances leans towards the side of the Opposite Parties. The case is lame of strength and therefore, liable to be dismissed.

 

9.      Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, we have no hesitation to hold that the Complainant has failed to prove that there has been any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties or that the Opposite Parties adopted any unfair trade practice. As such, the Complaint is devoid of any merit and the same is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

 

10.      The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

09^th May, 2017                                                    

Sd/-

(S.S. PANESAR)

       PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

(SURJEET KAUR)

       MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

(SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)                                                                                                      MEMBER