Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/300/2016

Sheikhar Shukla - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Neeraj Malhotra

13 Jun 2018

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

 

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/300/2016
Date of Institution	:	03/05/2016
Date of Decision	:	13/06/2018

 

Sheikhar Shukla, resident of H.No. 322, Giani Zail Singh Colony, Ropar, Punjab.

…..Complainant

 

V E R S U S

 

[1]     Apple India Private Limited, 19^th Floor, Concorde Tower C, U.B. City, No. 24, Vittal Mallya Road, Bangalore-560001 (India), through its Director.

[2]     Paramatrix Info Solution (P) Ltd., SCO 112-113, Ground Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh-160034, through its Manager (Store Head).

[3]     Jumbo Electronics Corporation Pvt. Ltd., Elante Mall, Shop No.240, 2^nd Floor, Phase-I, Chandigarh-160002, through its Store Head.

…… Opposite Parties

QUORUM:	SH.RATTAN SINGH THAKUR	PRESIDENT
	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SH.SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                                                       

ARGUED BY	:	None for Complainant.
		Sh. Deepak Jain, Counsel for Opposite Party No.1.
		Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Counsel for Opposite Party No.2.
		Opposite Party No.3 ex-parte.

 

PER SURJEET KAUR, MEMBER

1.         Sh. Sheikhar Shukla, Complainant has preferred this Consumer Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against M/s Apple India Private Limited and Ors. (hereinafter called the Opposite Parties), alleging that he purchased Apple iPhone 6 for Rs.53,500/- on 24.04.2015 from Opposite Party No.3 vide bill Annexure C-1. After the usage, the rear shell of the handset got bend by itself, leaving the screen & touch undamaged (Photograph Annexure C-2). Accordingly, the Complainant approached Opposite Party No.2 on 21.04.2016, who after examination concluded that such kind of defect is often there with the model in question and assured to replace it in a day. However, instead of doing the needful, the Opposite Party No.2 on 23.04.2016 flatly refused to replace the handset. Left with no alternate, the Complainant made a Complaint to Apple Care, but they failed to accede his request. With the cup of woes brimming, the Complainant has filed the instant Consumer Complaint, alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties.
2.         Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case. However, nobody appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.3 despite service, therefore, it was proceeded ex-parte.
3.         Opposite Party No.1 resisted the Complaint by filing its reply, inter alia, pleading that the Complainant has not disclosed the IMEI number of the iPhone nor has he produced any document to show that he had allegedly shown the alleged iPhone to the Opposite Party No.2. The Complainant has also failed to produce any document acknowledged by Opposite Party No.2 stating that they had inspected the alleged iPhone when it was brought to it. Thus, the Complainant cannot claim the alleged product to be an iPhone nor can he claim any sort of service/or relief of any sort from the answering Opposite Party.  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.         Opposite Party No.2 filed its separate reply, inter alia, pleading that on 22.04.2016 the iPhone was brought to it after usage of 11 months 28 days for diagnose purpose and free software was updated without any charges being within warranty period. As regard, bent in body of iPhone, answering Opposite Party has maintained that it is not aware of any such defect and as per its record, there is no such physical damage. The iPhone was never submitted to the answering Opposite Party for any service/repair as such no assurance of the replacement of set was ever given. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, Opposite Party No.2 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5.         Controverting the allegations contained in the written statement and reiterating the pleadings in the Complaint, the Complainant filed the rejoinder.
6.        The parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
7.         We have gone through the entire evidence, written arguments tendered on behalf of the Complainant and heard the arguments addressed by the Learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2.
8.         It is evident from Annexure C-1 that the Complainant purchased an Apple iPhone 6 for a total consideration of Rs.53,500/- on 24.04.2015 from Opposite Party No.3. The allegation of the Complainant is that when on 21.04.2016 the Opposite Party No.2 examined the defect reported by him, it (OP No.2) assured him that the handset in question can be replaced for the reported fault, but later on after two days i.e. on 23.04.2016, Opposite Party No.2 refused to honour the offer of replacement, which led to the filing of the present Consumer Complaint.
9.         The stand taken by Opposite Party No.1 (the Manufacturer) is that the Complainant has not disclosed the IMEI number of the iPhone in question and no any job-sheet issued by Opposite Party No.2. Hence as there is no deficiency in service on its part, the present Complaint needs to be dismissed qua it.
10.         On the other hand, Opposite Party No.2 has contended in its written statement that Complainant brought the iPhone in question just before two days of the expiry of the warranty period for the purpose of free software upgradation, which was honoured/offered without charging any amount being the same within the warranty period. Hence, Opposite Party No.2 has prayed for dismissal of the Complaint.
11.         After going through the documents on record, we could find only one bill Annexure C-1 which is a proof of the purchase of the handset in question. There is no any such document in the form of job-sheet/ service record which can prove that the handset in question was ever submitted to Opposite Party No.2 for the faults reported in the Complaint. Annexure C-2 are the photographs of the handset placed on record by the Complainant to show the defects, but these photographs leads this Forum nowhere. We feel in the event when the Complainant would have shown the subject handset to the Service Provider i.e. Opposite Party No.2 it would have issued him a service report/ job-sheet for taking the iPhone in question for inspection and certainly would have given its remark(s) pertaining to the condition of the handset. But, the Complainant has miserably failed to place any such document(s) on record to substantiate his claim. 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.
12.         For the reasons recorded above, we do not find even a shred of evidence to prove any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Parties. Consequently, the Consumer Complaint fails and the same is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.   
13.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

 

	Sd/-	Sd/-	Sd/-
13/06/2018	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]	[Rattan Singh Thakur]
	Member	Member	President
“Dutt”