Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/722/2019

Sh. Sachin Uppal - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Gaurav Gupta Adv.

05 Jul 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	722/2019
Date of Institution	:	06.08.2019
Date of Decision	:	05.07.2022

 

                     

            

 

 

Sh.Sachin Uppal r/o # 71, Patap Mandi Shahbad, Haryana 136135 represented through Sh.Paras Chanana s/o Mohinder Chanana r/o H.No.26, Sector 4, HUDA, Naraingarh.

                 ...  Complainant.

Versus

 

1. Apple India Pvt. Ltd., through its Managing Director, Regd. Office: 19^th Floor, Concorde Tower C, UB City No.24, Vittal Mallya Road, Bangalore-560001.

 

2. Apple Service Centre, c/o Unicorn Infosolutions Pvt. Ltd., through its Regional Manager/Authorized Signatory, SCO 315-316, G.F. Sector 35, Chandigarh

…. Opposite Parties.

 

BEFORE:
	SMT.SURJEET KAUR,	PRESIDING MEMBER
	SHRI B.M.SHARMA	MEMBER
Argued by:-
	Sh.Nitin Gupta, Adv. Proxy for Sh.Gaurav Gupta, Adv. for the complainant Sh.Devinder Kumar, Advocate for OP No.1. None for OP No.2.

 

PER B.M.SHARMA, MEMBER

1.     The complainant has filed the instant complaint through his SPA holder Sh.Paras Chanana. Briefly stated, the facts of case as alleged by the complainant are that he purchased Iphone XS Gold 64 GB USA for $ 1076.92/- vide invoice dated 29.11.2018, having warranty of one year. The OP also claimed that the mobile phone is water proof and also provided warranty for water resistance including other defects.  On 10.05.2019, the mobile phone got dead and the same was landed at OP NO.2 who did not repair the same till 22.05.2019 and later on alleged to have sent the mobile phone to Bangalore Service Center  and he was assured that as and when it was repaired, the same was returned to him.  Even after passing of good number of days, the OPs were unable to remove the defects and having harassed he sent an e-mail dated 23.06.2019 to the OP and asked about date of returning the mobile phone.  The OPs vide reply dated 24.07.2019 (Annexure C-4) informed him that the mobile phone is liquid damage and the same is not covered under warranty. Alleging that the aforesaid acts of omission and commission on the part of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
2.     In its written statement, OP No.1 while admitting the factual matrix of the case has pleaded that the mobile phone is a water resistant and not water proof and there is no warranty cover for liquid damage and the customers still have to be careful around water and the complainant is misleading this Commission by alleging that OP No.1 gives warranty cover on water resistance.   The IP in the rating refers to ingress protection or how well it protects against foreign materials entering the enclosure. The first number in the IP67 rating is on a scale of 0 to 6 and indicates how well the device protects against incoming solid objects such as dust or sand and second number relates to water protection and is on a scale from 0 to 8. It has further been stated that the iPhone is splash, water and dust resistant.   The complainant has not produced any evidence to show that OP No.2 had mentioned that the phone is under warranty.  The complainant has also failed to explain why he negligently handled and damaged his iPhone and also that the mobile phone is having manufacturing defects.  It has further been stated that OP No.2 inspected and found that the iPhone was damaged due to liquid contact. The remaining allegations have been denied, being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on their part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
3.          In its separate written statement, OP No.2 took identical objections as were taken by OP No.1.  It has also been stated that the phone in question is water resistant and not water proof.   OP No.2 is a just collection and service center of OP No.1 and follows guidelines laid down by OP No.1. It has further been stated that iPhone all major issues are sent to OP No.1 Bangalore Office for further rectification and correction.   It has further been stated that the complainant’s phone was liquid damaged and the same was confirmed by OP No.1.  It has further been stated that the service report as attached by the complainant clearly mentioned that “No warranty for liquid/physical damages”. The remaining allegations have been denied, being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on their part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
4.     We have heard the Counsel for the contesting parties and have gone through the documents on record as well as written submissions of the complainant.
5.     The perusal of the documentary evidence on record shows that the mobile phone in question was under warranty when it became defective. The only stand of the OPs is that the same was exposed to liquid/water and the damage due to water does not cover under the warranty terms and conditions. However, if the plea of the OPs for a moment is accepted then it is not understood that as to why the affidavit of the engineer/technician of the service center who inspected the mobile phone and made such a report has been adduced to show that the mobile phone became damage due to liquid.  We have, therefore, no hesitation in our mind to conclude that such a false and frivolous plea of liquid damage has been taken in the written reply by the OPs just to defeat the genuine claim of the complainant by any means and to evade their liabilities under the warranty. 
6.     Moreover, it is a common practice now a days of the Companies to deny service, within warranty period, to a common man/consumer by taking one plea or the other plea like in the present case damage due to liquid damage so that the claim could be easily ousted from warranty terms and they would earn by carrying out repairs on payment basis even within the warranty period.  It was the responsibility of the OPs to render the post-sale services to the complainant within the warranty period but they have failed to set right the defect in the mobile phone in question free of costs despite the fact that the same became defective within the warranty period. 
7.     As regards, the plea of the OPs that Sh.Paras Chanana is not competent to file the present complaint on behalf of the complainant is concerned, the same is bereft of any merit as he has attached a copy of the SPA in his favour duly signed by Sh.Sachin Uppal, the original purchaser of the mobile phone in question.   
8.     In view of the above sequel, the present complaint is partly allowed qua the OPs.  The OPs are directed to carry out the repairs to the mobile phone in question free of costs and to hand over the same after its repairs to the complainant. The OPs shall also pay lump sum compensation of Rs.7,000/- towards mental agony and physical harassment as well as ligation expenses.  In case, the mobile phone is not repairable then the OPs are directed to replace the same with a new one of the same brand/model or its value.
9.     This order be complied with by the OPs, within 30 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the awarded amount shall fetch interest @ 9 % per annum from the date of this order till actual payment besides compliance of other directions.
10.     Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced 05/07/2022
	Sd/- (SURJEET KAUR) PRESIDING MEMBER
	Sd/- (B.M.SHARMA) MEMBER