Date of Filing:12.11.2014
Date of Order:17.08.2016
BEFORE THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SHANTHINAGAR BANGALORE - 27.
Dated: 17TH DAY OF AUGUST 2016
PRESENT
SRI.SYED ANSER KHALEEM, B.SC., B.Ed.,LL.B.,PRESIDENT
SRI.H.JANARDHAN,B.A.L, LL.B., MEMBER
SMT.BHARATI.B.VIBHUTE, B.E(I.P.) LL.B., MEMBER
COMPLAINT NO.1902/2014
Manoharan.P,
Residing at No.37,
3rd A Cross,
Duo Height Layout,
Begur Road,
Bangalore-560 068. Complainant
V/s
1) Apple India Private Lted.,
19th Floor,
Concorde Tower C,
UB City No.24,
Vittal Mallya Road,
Bangalore 560 001.
2. M/s. AcessSeries,
Ground Floor,
Giri apartment,
100 feet Road,
2nd Phase, J.P. Nagar,
Bangalore-560 078. Opposite Parties
ORDER
BY SRI.SYED ANSER KHALEEM, PRESIDENT
1. This is the complaint filed U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred in short as O.Ps) alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps and prays for direction to the O.Ps to repair the I-phone to the usable condition or to replace the defective I-phone with new phone and to direct the O.Ps to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards damages.
2. The brief facts of the complaint is that, the complainant had purchased the I-Phone in question on 14.2.2014 from O.P.No.2 i.e. M/s. AcessSeries situated at J.P. Nagar, Bangalore by paying sum of Rs.54,000/-. The grievance of the complainant is that, the I-phone in question was not charging and hence the complainant approached the O.P show room/service center on 6.10.2014, whereas O.P did not repair the I-phone and intimated that the I-phone in question found to be external tampering and an internal tampering hence refused to repair the same. The complainant also issued notice to the O.Ps to rectify the defect but the O.P refused to do so. Hence this complaint.
3. Upon issuance of notice, O.P. No.1 remained absent and consequently O.P.No.1 proceeded to place ex-parte. Whereas, O.P.No.2 filed its version. In the version of O.P.No.2 it is contended that, the complaint is not maintainable either in the eye of law or on facts and they have not committed any deficiency in service from their part. However the contesting O.P admitted the purchase of the I-phone in question manufactured by the O.P.No.1. The O.P No.1 is only a retailer and not liable for any manufacturing defect of goods. Further contended that, the complainant was lodged the complaint with the service station of O.P.No.1 and the service manager of the O.P.No.1 has confirmed that the product has been tampered with and hence the issue is between the complainant and the O.P.No.1 only. On other grounds prays for dismissal of the complaint.
4. To substantiate the above case, the complainant has filed the affidavit evidence along with documents. We have heard the arguments.
5. On the basis of pleadings of the complainant, the following points will arise for our considerations are:-
(A) Whether the complainant has proved
deficiency in service on the part of the O.P?
(B) Whether the complainant is entitled for the
relief prayed for in the complaint?
(C) What order?
6. Our answers to the above points are:-
POINT (A) and (B) : In the affirmative.
POINT (C): As per the final order
for the following:
REASONS
POINT No (A) and (B):-
7. On perusing the pleadings of the parties, it is not in dispute that the complainant purchased the I-phone mobile from O.PNo.2 for an amount of Rs.54,000/-. It is also evident from the copies of invoice produced by the complainant.
8. The allegation of the complainant is that, the I-phone in question was not properly charging and detecting I-tunes, when the complainant approached the service centre as per the guidance of the O.P.No.2 but the service manager did not repair the I-phone in question and thereby did not resolve the problem. Per-contra, O.P No.2 contended that, he is only a retailer and when the complainant approaches with the problem he has send him to the service center to get it repaired and thereon he has done his duty and the issue is between the O.P.No.1 and the complainant. Whereas, O.P.No.2 contended that the I-phone in question was tampered and hence they could not carry out the repairs and resolve the problems.
9. It is pertinent to note that, the O.P.No.2 simply washed away the hands saying that the issue is between the complainant and the O.P.No.1. Whereas O.P.No.2 contended that the I –phone in question was tampered. On perusing the copy of the invoice it reveals that, the complainant paid Rs.53,400/- towards the purchase of the mobile. Further on perusal of the invoice terms and conditions it depicts that, “we are only resellers. Any claim against Guarantee/ Warrantee will be honoured by the concerned company. Goods once sold will not be taken back or exchanged. Manufacturer’s warranty only.”
10. On perusal of the evidence placed on record, the complainant purchased the I-phone in question on 14.2.2014. The warranty period is for one year and the product was given to service on 6.10.2014 within the year. If the seller and the manufacturer washed away their hands, who will resolve the problem. The complainant has paid an huge amount of Rs.53,400/- but unfortunately the said phone was not working and comes to repair within a year and hence it is the bounden duty of the manufacturer to sell good quality products and there should be value for money. It is worth to note that, though O.P.No.1 being the manufacturer remained absent without answering the claim made by the complainant and O.P.No.2 though appeared and filed their version and did not choose to file their evidence. The pleadings are not the substitute for the evidence and the parties to prove their case by tendering suitable evidence. Non resolving the problem occurred in the I-phone purchased by the complainant from O.P.No.2 and manufactured by O.P.No.1 and both are responsible and both have committed deficiency in service on there’s part. In the attendance circumstances of the case the I-phone in question as per the warranty the O.P.No.1 has to be repaired to original condition/usable condition and due to act of O.Ps, the complainant was made to wander from pillar to post and hence O.P.No.2 is liable to pay cost of the proceedings and O.P.No.1 is directed to repair the I-phone to the usable condition by removing defective parts with fresh warranty, failing which the O.P.No.2 is directed to pay the cost of the Mobile handset it will meets the ends of justice. Accordingly, we answered Point No.(A) and (B) in the affirmative.
POINT (C):
11. Based on the findings given on the point No. (A) and (B) and in the result we proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
- The complaint is allowed-in-part with cost.
- The O.P No.1 i.e. Apple India Private Ltd., is hereby directed to repair the I-phone to the usable condition with fresh warranty, failing which the O.P.No.2 i.e. M/s. AccessSeries is hereby directed pay the cost of the I-phone mobile handset to the complainant.
- The O.P No.2 is hereby directed to pay Rs.2,000/- towards the cost of the proceedings.
- The O.P No.1 and 2 are hereby directed to comply the order of this Forum within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and submit the compliance report to this Forum within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order.
- Send a copy of this order to both parties free of cost.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this the 17th Day of AUGUST 2016)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
*Rak
