Delhi

East Delhi

CC/197/2019

AJAI DAKSH - Complainant(s)

Versus

APPLE INDIA - Opp.Party(s)

18 Oct 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. No.197/2019

 

	AJAI DAKSH, A-106, 3rd Floor, Preet Vihar, (Near Universal Public School) Delhi-110092	….Complainant
Versus
	Apple India Private Limited, 19th Floor CONCORDE TOWER C, UB CITY, NO-24, VITTAL MALLYA ROAD, BANGLORE KARNATAKA 560001 INDIA CIN NO-U30007KA1996PTC019630	……OP1
	B2X Services Solution India Private Limited F-25, 1st Floor, Above KFC Preet Vihar, New Delhi-110092	……OP2

 

 

Date of Institution: 18.06.2019

Judgment Reserved on: 18.10.2022

Judgment Passed on: 18.10.2022

                  

CORUM:

Sh. S.S. Malhotra (President)

Ms. Ritu Garodia (Member)

Sh. Ravi Kumar (Member)

 

Order By: Shri S.S. Malhotra (President)

 

JUDGEMENT

1. By this order I shall dispose off the present complaint filed by the Complainant against OP w.r.t. alleged deficiency of services in not replacing/ repairing of his mobile phone as purchased by him from the OP2 and manufactured by the OP1. 
2. Brief facts as stated by the Complainant in nutshell are that he purchased iphone 6S worth Rs. 40,000/- from OP2 and also paid Rs.3,500/- for insurance on 10.05.2017 having mobile IMEI No. 359211072618655 but after purchasing the phone he was suffering various problems with the iphone 6S i.e. Call Recording is not possible for free, The phone is hanging every day, it has Heating Problem, Battery Backup is low, Call log storage is short up to 100 call only and he is not able to attach anything for writing even an e-mail, and the only reason the service centre provides is that they will format the device and solve the issue and as such he has prayed that the defending company be directed to return amount of Rs. 43,500/- with interest and Rs.2,00,000/- for mental harassment. 
3. OP1 has filed reply to this application taking preliminary objection that complaint is not maintainable and the same has been filed to mislead this Hon’ble Commission and it is submitted that the standard rule is that if the device has some issues covered within the warranty period the same shall be repaired/ replaced as the case may be and if the product are not faulty and are functioning well then it will be not be replaced merely on the discretion of the Complainant and for that Complainant must have to comply with the warranty policies and if the warranty policies is breached then the OP is not liable for any warranty. 
4. It is pertinent to mention that Complainant approached the OP2 on 15.3.2018 and then on 24.03.2018 after 10 months of purchase for power related issues with his iphone 6S and the same was replaced by iphone6 by the OP2 as per the warranty term.  Other alleged issues of the customer/ complainant, that he could not see more than 100 call logs in the log history, call recording is not possible and camera quality is poor, were checked by the OP2 and it did not find any other alleged issues and found the same are functioning well and further regarding the issue of more than 100 call log are not visible, the OP2 informed him that it was not an issue at all and was told that it was expected behavior/ feature of the particular iphone model.  The Complainant blatantly refused to accept the said explanation and threatened to file the complaint and filed the present complaint. 
5. On merit purchasing of phone is not denied but it is submitted that Complainant is giving misleading statement as on checking the said phone, OP2 gave the explanation as mentioned herein above but the Complainant is trying to take advantage of his own negligence under the garb of consumer laws and it is prayed that complaint of the Complainant be dismissed. 
6. OP2 has filed its reply inter alia stating that complaint of the Complainant is not maintainable as he has not approached to Commission with clean hands, complaint has been devised to harass and humiliate the OP, there is no cause of action in favour of the Complainant or against the OP2 and as such complaint is liable to be dismissed.  It is further submitted that the Complainant visited the service centre of OP2 on 15.03.2018 for the first time and then on 24.03.2018 for the issue of speech related, low sound from the receiver during the call upon which the Complainant was told that he has to submit his handset for diagnosing the problem.  He deposited the handset by job sheet No. DEL150318453714 on the same day and he was informed that he will get the update within 7 to 10 working days. 
7. The OP2 then sent the handset to the Apple Repair Centre of OP1 for further diagnosing the problem and thereafter Apple Repair Centre of OP1 replaced the handset and sent back the replaced handset to Service Centre of OP2.  The OP2 in turn called the Complainant and informed him that the said handset has been replaced and he can collect the same from Service Centre of OP2 at any time.  The Complainant visited the Service Centre of OP2 and replaced handset was handed over to him along with delivery report.  Copy of job sheet is attached as Annexure-A and Annexure-B.  The Complainant visited the Service Centre of OP2 only once for the said handset and same was also replaced by the manufacturing co. i.e. OP1 and the Complainant filed this case in June 2019 after one year of service provided and even Complainant never visited the respondent no.2 for any issue after the replacement of the handset.  Hence, complaint of the Complainant is liable to be dismissed. 
8. On merit, facts with respect to purchasing of the phone, visiting of the Complainant in the OP2 Service Centre informing the problems etc. are not denied and contents of the preliminary objection are reiterated thereby stating that the handset has already been replaced and thereafter there is no complaint filed by the Complainant ever in this matter. 
9. Complainant thereafter filed the Rejoinder although he denied the facts of written statement filed by OP2 but he never denied that the handset has been replaced by the OP.  Both the parties have filed the respective evidence. 
10. The Commission has heard the arguments and perused the record.  Although the complaint of the Complainant is quite vague and he has stated certain facts with respect to the short comings being faced by the Complainant in the device he purchased, yet it is admitted fact that after the deposit of the handset by the Complainant to the centre of OP2, OP1 has replaced the handset and the same has been even handed over to the Complainant and it is also the admitted proposition by the Complainant that he had never filed any further complaint against the OP with respect to the replaced handset. 
11. Therefore, the proposition which emerges is that the first complaint of the Complainant was with respect to the device which was somehow faulty and when he raised the complaint for the first time after about 10 months, his complaint was heard, handset was taken from him and within 7 to 10 days he was informed that his phone has been duly replaced, which he recollected and as such there is no complaint thereafter. 
12. The Complainant used this handset for about 10 months and the complaint was redressed within a period of one month of the first complaint and as such it cannot be said that there was any manufacturing defect or deficiency in the handset initially as the phone has already been used by the Complainant for about 10 months and even when there was some complaint, the OP2 had redressed the same. 
13. Therefore, there appears to be no deficiency in providing the services by the OPs.  Complaint of the Complainant is accordingly dismissed.    

Copy of the order be supplied / sent to the parties free of cost as per rules.

File be consigned to Record Room.

Announced on 18.10.2022.