SMT. RAVI SUSHA: PRESIDENT

     Complainant filed complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 seeking to get an order directing opposite parties to replace the iphone in dispute to the complainant and cost of this complaint.

The complainant’s case is that he is a student and has purchased an iphone 6 Apple brand on 06/07/2018.  An additional warranty was extended through the OP No.2 vide receipt No.000180.  The gadget has shown many complaints in its use and started to shut down automatically.  Hence he has entrusted the iphone to OP2 on 11/10/2018 for necessary repairs and corrections.  Even though a long period of one month has been elapsed, the gadget has not been repaired or replaced. He has contacted OP No.2 several times to them.  On 16/11/2018 the complainant had issued a lawyer notice to the OPs demanding that to come over the gadget repaired or replaced the IP Phone to the complainant within 10 days of receipt of the notice.  OP 1 had received the notice on 20/11/2018 and OP No.2 had received the notice on 19/11/2018. The OPs did no to come over the gadget repaired or replaced the iphone so far.  OPs had not sent any reply also.  The value of the iphone was Rs.27,000/-.  Hence this complaint.

OPs filed version separately. OP No.1 contended that the complainant purchased iphone 6, 16 GB, Space gray on 07/07/2017 bearing serial No. FFMSX2SXG5MN(“iphone”).  Complainant approached the OP NO.2 on 11/10/2018, reporting automatically shut down issue.  The technician of the OP NO.2 sent the iphone to Apple Repair Center, ie    OP NO.1 which is located Bangalore for further diagnosis as the Apple repair centre is authorized to carry out in depth services in the iphone.    Upon diagnosis, no such issue was found iphone was returned back to the OP No.2  with status “Unit returned, could not Duplicate Failure” on 29/10/2018.  There after the complainant we asked to collect the iphone from the OP NO.2, but the complainant blatantly, refused to collect the iphone stating the he wants replacement of the iphone.  Subsequently, the complainant issued a legal notice dated 16/11/2018 to OP No.1 and OP No.2.  But no details of the iphone with respect to IMEI/ serial No. of phone and thus the OP No.1 was not able to trace the issue of the complainant.  Pursuant to which, the OP No.2 contacted several times through emails and calls both to the complainant and the advocate who issued legal notice but the same was deliberately not replied.  The complainant refused to collect his phone till date, and relentlessly persisted that the iphone be replaced.  Thus, the complainant instituted the present complaint before this commission, based on grounds that hold no merit. Hence, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

OP2 filed separate version stating the OP submitted that this OP is only a service provider of the 1^st OP under the name as Reliance ResQ.   This OP is only collecting the devices, that manufactured by the 1^st OP is only collecting the devices, that manufactured by the 1^st OP, for sending it to the 1^st OP for repair services, as per the service and warrant terms and conditions, prevailing between the customers and the 1^st OP.  The complainant had purchased iphone is not known to this answering OP, hence the complainant has to put strict proof regarding that the above complainant took an additional extended warranty, on 06/07/2018 is admitted by this OP, but the averments allegations to the effect that the gadget had shown many complainants in its use and had started to shut down automatically, hence the complainant had entrusted iphone to this OP for necessary repairs and even after lapse of one month, this OP failed to return the gadget after the repair or replace, the complainant had contacted this OP several times etc, are utter false and hence denied.  The complainant had send a lawyer notice to this answering OP and same was received on 19/11/2018 Is correct.  This OP submits that, the complainant had entrusted the phone two times, by alleging defects.  At the 1^st time he had entrusted the phone, on 25/06/2018 with complaint of “automatically restart issue”.  This answering OP had sent the device to 1^st OP with repair ID G325286956, to take further action.  The Device was returned by 1^st OP on 03/07/2018 with a report the “no trouble fund” and hence the device was collected by the complainant. After that the complainant again entrusted the device with a complaint of “automatically shut down issue”, on 11/10/2018.  At that 2^nd time also, the device was sent to 1^st OP for further action with repair IDG339179431, by this answering OP and 2^nd time also device was returned by 1^st OP with a report that “no trouble found”.  On receiving the device and report from the 1^st OP, immediately this OP informed the matter to the complainant and directed to collect the device.  At that time complainant was ready to collect the device, but surprisingly he send a lawyer notice.  Instead of collecting the device the complainant filed this complaint.  This OP is not responsible for repair and replace of the devices.  There is no deliberately negligence or delay or deficiency in the service of this OP.  Hence, prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

Complainant has filed affidavit and documents.  Complainant is examined as Pw1  and the documents were marked as A1 to A6.  OP No.1 submitted documents and were marked as Ext.B1.  Service assistant of OP No.2 filed affidavit and was examined as Dw1 and marked the documents as Ext.B2 to B4.

After that the learned counsel of complainant and OPs 1 and 2 filed their written argument notes.

Complainant’s allegation is that during the extended warranty period the gadget of his iphone worth Rs.27,000/-shown many complaints in its use and started to shut down automatically.  Hence he entrusted the iphone to OP on 11/10/2018 for necessary repairs and corrections.  Even though a long period of one month has been elapsed, the gadget has not been repaired or replaced by OP No.2 after contacting several times to them. 

On the other hand OPs submitted that the complainant had entrusted the phone in two times to OP No.2 by alleging defects.  At the first time he had entrusted on 25/06/2018 with complaint of automatically restart issue.”  They sent the devise to OP No.1 to take further action, the devise was returned on 03/07/2018 with a report that ‘no trouble found’ and the device was collected by the complainant.  After that it was again entrusted with a complaint “automatically shut down issue” on 11/10/2018.  In this time also OP No.1 returned the phone with a report “no trouble found”.  On receiving the device from OP1, immediately they informed the matter to complainant to collect it.  But instead of collecting the device the complainant filed this complaint.

Complainant alleged that at the first time the phone was repaired and returned it but since the complaint again repeated, it was again entrusted to OP NO.1.  On the testimony of Dw1, it is evident that on the 2^nd time, the device entrusted on 11/10/2018 and received from OP1 on 29/10/2018.  Then OP2 sent mail to the complainant on 19/11/2018, delay of 20 days receiving Advocate notice from the complainant.  Dw1 explains that informed the matter to customer through phone call, but for that no evidence submitted before us.  Also evident that though OP2 received the the mobile phone in a working condition on 2019 from OP 1but submitted it before the commission only on 2013 after 4 years despite this case is pending from 2019 onwards.

Here OPs version is that the iphone does not have any complaint, but they have not submitted any report of their technicians, to reveal the fact that the I Phone in dispute is a defect free one.  In Ext.A2, Job sheet it is reported that symptoms as ‘automatic shut down issue’.   The version of OPs that the said defect was reported by the customer, but it is seen that the defects was observed by the engineers.  Then it is presumed that the defect was recorded after observed by the engineer of OP2.  Further it is not proved  by OPs that OP No.1 returned the device at the first time, with a report.  ‘No trouble found,’ as the said version was denied by the complainant.  So from the said fact and the symptoms noted in Ext.A2, it is revealed that the complaint in the device shown repeated even after repaired.

The deficiency on the part of the OPs is reflected from the fact that the complainant entrusted the phone in the second time to OP No.2 on 11/10/2018, but the mail was sent to complainant by OP2 after a period of 20 days after received the Advocate notice and submitted it before the commission after 4 years without any report revealing that the device is in working condition with free of defect.  Further there is no evidence to show that there was teletalk by OP2 with the complainant informing to take back the phone.  OP No.1 also failed to substantiate that the device in dispute is free from defect.  Under those circumstance, there is no other way except to replace the mobile in dispute or to refund of the money along with interest, compensation and cost.

Taking over all view of the matter we are of the opinion that in the above mentioned circumstances, where the iphone purchased by a student, became defective within short period after its purchase, caused mental agony and hardship, when the consumer had purchased something for his studies.  According to complainant the price of mobile was Rs.27,000/-.

In the result complaint is allowed in part.  Opposite parties are directed to replace the handset (in dispute) of complainant with a new defect free set or if the same model is not available any more then, it should be replaced with a new handset of the same value with warranty card.  If opposite parties are not interested to replace the mobile, they shall pay the value of mobile set Rs.27,000/- with interest @ 9 %  per annum from the date of complaint till realization.  Opposite parties are further directed to pay Rs.10,000/- towards cost of the litigation expense.  Opposite parties 1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to comply the order within one month from the date of receipt of this order.  Failing which the amount Rs.27,000/- carries interest @ 12% per annum from the date of complaint till realization.  Complainant is at liberty to file execution application for realization as per provision in Consumer Protection Act 2019.

Exts.

A1-Receipit dated 06/07/2018

A2-Copy of Job sheet

A3-Copy of lawyer notice

A4-Postal receipt 2 in numbers

A5-Acknowledgment card

A6-Acknowledgment card

B1-Copy of E-mail from OP1

B2-Attested copy of Apple care protection plan

B3-Repair status dated 04/07/2018

B4-Repair status dated 25/10/2018

Pw1- Complainant

Dw1-Witness of OP2

Sd/                                                                             Sd/                                                       Sd/

PRESIDENT                                                                   MEMBER                                                   MEMBER

Ravi Susha                                                               Molykutty Mathew                                     Sajeesh K.P

(mnp)

/Forward by order/

Assistant Registrar