Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/16/179

Ashish Jain - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

06 Apr 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

Consumer Complaint No. 179 of 04.03.2016

Date of Decision            :   06.04.2017 

 

Ashish Jain son of Sh.Keemti Lal Jain, resident of H.No.3776/1, Street No.14, New Madhopuri, Sunder Nagar, Ludhiana.

….. Complainant

                                                         Versus

 

1.Apple India, 19^th Floor, Concorde Tower, C, UB City, 24 Vittal Malaya Road, Banglore 560001 through its Authorized Representative.

2.Reliance Communication Limited, A Block, 2^nd Floor, DAKC, Kopan Khairane, Navi Mumbai through its authorized representative.

3.F-1 Info Solutions and Services Private Limited, 58-A, Model Gram, Near Kochar Market, Ludhiana through its authorized representative.

 

…Opposite parties

             (Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

 

QUORUM:

SH.G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT                                     

SH.PARAM JIT SINGH BEWLI, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

 

For complainant            :          Sh.Janamjeet Singh Sidhu, Advocate

For OP1                         :          Mrs.Shalini Joshi, Advocate

For OP2                         :         Sh.Sunil Goel, Advocate

For OP3                         :         Ex-parte.

 

PER G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

 

1.                Complainant purchased an Apple I-Phone 5S, 16GB MM, silver Colour, product Serial/IMEI No.358690056911296 of OP1 through OP2 vide invoice No.IN003036 dated 12.12.2013 by paying Rs.61,856/- under scheme of Reliance Truly Unlimited Plan for 24 months. Amount of monthly EMI was Rs.2999/- payable by the complainant in 24 monthly EMIs. In the first week of November 2014, some problem occurred in the display of this mobile. Half of the display screen became  black suddenly. Complainant claims to have always kept the I-phone in a very good condition       by using the same carefully and cautiously. On 7.11.2014, complainant deposited the mobile phone in question with OP3, the service centre of OP1. After checking, the mobile was returned to the complainant by claiming that damage has occurred, which cannot be repaired under warranty. For repair, demand of Rs.21,500/- was put forth. Despite request by the complainant to OP3 to the effect that free repair required because of mobile being under warranty period, the same request not acceded to. Despite repeated requests, the mobile has not been repaired and nor replaced and nor refund of the price done by Ops and as such, registered notice dated 17.11.2014 served through counsel, but reply thereto even not received. It is claimed that above said act amounts to deficiency in service on the part of Ops and same caused lot of mental tension and harassment to the complainant and as such, prayer made for directing Ops to refund the price of mobile set in question or replace the same or repair the same. Compensation for mental harassment of Rs.25,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.11,000/- more claimed.

2.                Complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CA along with documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C4 and then closed the ex-parte evidence because earlier    Ops were proceeded against ex-parte.

3.                Earlier, this complaint was allowed vide order dated 17.4.2015 passed by this Forum. However, on appeal being preferred against the above said order of 17.4.2015, the matter remanded back to this Forum with directions to decide the case on merits. These directions were issued vide order dated 1.2.2016 passed by the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh through First Appeal No.604 of 2015 titled as M/s Apple India Private Limited vs. Ashish Jain and others.

4.                After receipt of this case by way of remand, written statement by OP1 and OP2 filed separately each. Even then OP3 remained ex-parte.

5.                In written statement filed by OP1, it is claimed that complaint being filed with malafide intention is devoid of merits. Rather, the consumers, who willfully destroy, damage or negligently handles the product are not eligible to claim relief under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986(hereinafter in short referred to as ‘Act’). In case, damage to the product caused by external factors, then benefit of the warranty clauses not available. Purchase of the mobile phone in question not denied. Rather, it is claimed that Op3, the service centre of OP1 made diligent efforts for diagnosing the problem, when the mobile phone was brought to it on 7.11.2014. OP3 after thorough technical analysis and visual mechanical inspection found that display of the mobile phone was black and there were lines on it. Further, he found that all this occurred due to pressure damage with the display. Services were offered to be provided on payment because the loss occurred due to pressure damage and claim was not covered under the warranty clauses. Complaint alleged to be filed by suppressing the material facts. Manufacturing defect in the mobile phone in fact was not there. Rather, the complainant himself damaged the phone by exerting high pressure on the screen. Admittedly, the complainant deposited the mobile phone with OP3 on 7.11.2014, who demanded repair charges of Rs.21,500/- because of non availability of warranty clauses. Each and every other averment of the complaint denied.

6.                In separate written statement filed by Op2, same pleas are almost taken as are taken in the written statement of OP1. It is also claimed that this Forum has no jurisdiction to decide the dispute between the telecom service provider and its subscriber in view of Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act. It is also pleaded interalia as if the complainant has no locus standi or cause of action to file this complaint. OP2 is a telecom service provider and not the manufacturer and as such, it is not liable for the defects in the handset. Manufacturer of the product is the only person responsible for any manufacturing defects in the product. Damage to the product caused due to illegal act of complainant. Each and every other averment of the complaint denied by claiming that no mental tension or agony caused to the complainant.

7.                Counsel for Op1 tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RA of Sh.Priyesh Povanna along with document Ex.R1 to Ex.R3 and thereafter, did not produce any evidence, despite availing sufficient chance. Counsel for OP2 tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.DB of Sh.Garry Rana, Authorized Signatory of Reliance Communications Limited and then closed the evidence.

8.                Written arguments not submitted by any of the parties. Oral arguments alone addressed and those were heard. Records gone through minutely. 

9.                It is vehemently contended by counsel for complainant that in view of the contents of Ex.R3=Ex.C4, it should be held that as reason of cause of damage not mentioned and as such, virtually due services not provided by the service centre, OP3. Even if reason/cause in these documents not disclosed, but despite that in the discussed problem column, it has been stated twice that it is a case of pressure damage. In the concerned columns of these documents, it is mentioned that due to pressure damage, display damaged and half screen went black. So, it is obvious      that it is specifically recorded in Ex.C4=Ex.R3 that problem in the display screen occurred because of pressure damage to the mobile phone in question. If half screen became black, then it was due to exerting of the pressure on the screen. When the

contents of job card Ex.R3=CW4 read as a whole, then they lead no manner of doubt that problem occurred due to pressure damage. That pressure damage connotes to    use of external pressure on the screen. After going through contents of terms and conditions of warranty policy Ex.R1, it is made out that warranty does not apply to damage caused by accident, abuse, misuse, fire, earthquake or other external cause. Exerting of pressure on the mobile certainly falls in the category of damage on account of external cause. So, submissions advanced by counsel for OP1 certainly has force that in fact, the complainant not entitled to free repair because benefit of warranty not available in view of putting of pressure on the mobile.

10.              It is vehemently contended by counsel for OP2 that portal of OP2 alone used for purchase of the mobile phone and warranty to be provided by the manufacturer and as such, Op2 being seller not liable in any way. These submissions advanced by counsel for OP2 has force, particularly when as discussed above, the damage to the mobile phone in question caused because of external pressure put on the mobile and benefit of warranty clauses not available.

11.              It is vehemently contended by counsel for complainant that the complainant is not using the mobile for the last 3 years and as such, if a new set to be purchased, then further loss of Rs.40,000/- more will be borne by the complainant and as such, refund of price alone is an appropriate remedy. Even if damage to the mobile reported within 1 year of purchase, but said damage was for external cause owing to putting of pressure and as such, if OP3 demanded the repair charges, then his act is not illegal at all. Rather, benefit of warranty clause not available and as such, complainant not entitled for free repair or for replacement or refund of the price.

12.              As a sequel of the above discussion, complaint dismissed without any order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules.

13.                        File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                   (Param Jit Singh Bewli)                        (G.K. Dhir)

               Member                                                                 President

Announced in Open Forum

Dated:06.04.2017

Gurpreet Sharma.