Jammu and Kashmir

Jammu

CC/694/2017

ANSHU MAHAJAN - Complainant(s)

Versus

APPLE INDIA - Opp.Party(s)

RAJAT GUPTA

20 Oct 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,JAMMU

         (Constituted under J&K Consumer Protection Act,1987)

 

                                                          .

 Case File  No.                 228/DFJ           

 Date of  Institution   :  20-09-2017

 Date of Decision      :    09-10-2018

 

Anshu Mahajan,

S/O Sh.Arun  Mahajan,

R/O 85 Street Mangotrian,

Jain Bazar,Jammu.

                                                                                                                                                                Complainant

                    V/S

1. 1.Apple India Private Limited,

  19^th Floor Concorde Tower-C,

  UB City,No.24 Vitta Mallya Road,

  Banglore-560001.

2.F1 Info Solutions & Services Pvt.Ltd.

  Chahal Complex,168A,Sec.1,

  Railway Road,Gandhi Nagar,Extension,

  Nanak Nagar,Jammu-180004.

                                                                                                                 Opposite parties

CORAM

                  Khalil Choudhary              (Distt.& Sessions Judge)   President

                  Ms.Vijay Angral                                                                Member

                  Mr.Ghulam Sarwar Chouhan                                       Member

 

In the matter of: Complaint under section 10 of J&K Consumer

                              Protection Act 1987.

      

Mr.Mohd.Aamir Awam, Advocate for complainant, present

Mr.Arvind Khajuria,Advocate for OP1,present.

Mr.Sushant Samnotra,Advocate for OP2,present.

                                      

                                                    ORDER

 

                           The present complaint is filed by the complainant on the grounds that he purchased a  phone Apple made model iphone 6 64 GB manufactured by OP1 for a consideration of Rs.47,000/- on,05-03-2016 bearing IMEI No.355401072009633 vide Bill No.18600(copy of bill is annexed as annexure-A)however, after few months of the purchase of handset, it developed an inherent defect, whereby the ringer of the handset stopped functioning and further gave network problems, complainant was unable to call from its contacts and front camera of the handset also got dislocated. Complainant approached OP2,on,13-02-2017 who is the authorized service centre of OP1 for the purpose of giving after sales service to its customers and apprised them about the problem faced by him and OP2, took the handset of complainant for removing the problem and told him that in order to remove the defect they will have to send the handset to OP1 and they will return the handset within  15-20 days after removing the defect and OP2 also told him that they will issue a standby handset to him for that period,however,OP2 did not issue the same to him on the same day and told him that they will issue the handset to him on next day as they have to process some request to OP1.That the complainant again went to the office of OP2 on the next day i.e.on,14-02-2017 and they made him to sit for hours together and thereafter issued the said alternate handset. That on 26-02-2017 complainant got a call from OP2 and told him that he can collect the handset from them as the defect in the handset has been fully rectified and the complainant immediately  went to the office of OP2 for taking delivery of his handset,however,OP2 refused to deliver the said handset on the same day and told him that they have not yet sought clearance from OP1,hence they cannot deliver the handset to him and further told him that they will give the handset back to him on the next day i.e.27-02-2017. That on,27-02-2017 complainant again went to OP2 and after waiting for two hours,OP2 returned the handset to him and apprised him that the defects in the handset have been fully rectified and for that they have to changed the entire Display Assembly of the handset and further assured that he will not face any problem in the handset in future and the oP2 also told him that they have also extended the service warranty of the said handset by a period of 90 days. Allegation of complainant is that the said defect was never rectified at all and he started facing some other problems, thereafter he again visited OP2 and apprised him about the problems faced by him,however,OP2 took the handset of complainant and further told him that there is no such defect in the handset and refused to entertain the request made by the complainant and further told him that they have already replaced the display assembly in the handset and he can do nothing more and the complainant took back the handset, when OP2 outrightly refused to entertain the request of complainant. Complainant further submitted that the defects mentioned above were never rectified and the Ops have not been able to remove the same. Further allegation of complainant is that he repeatedly approached OPs for rectification of defect, but the Ops failed to remove the defects, and same, according to complainant were manufacturing in nature, therefore, in the final analysis, for deficiency in service, complainant prays for refund of cost of handset to the tune of Rs. 47,000/ alongwith interest @ 18% per annum and in addition, prays for compensation under different heads to the tune of Rs.1.30 lacs.

                              On the other hand,OP1 filed objections and resisted the complaint on the ground that the complainant experiences some issues with the iPhone and then he deposited the said iPhone with OP2 on,13-02-2017.However,it is pertinent to mention that the face time was dislocated from the camera. It is incorrect that the front camera was dislocated. It is incorrect that complainant was not issued with a standby iPhone for the period when his iPhone was being repaired. As per warranty.OP2 can diagnose whether iPhone parts can be replaced or the entire iPhone has to be replaced under warranty. The complainant had acknowledged that the Iphone is working fine and acknowledged satisfaction on the service report when he collected the Iphone back on 27-02-2017. There is no report of any defect found in the said iPhone.Despite having received the said iPhone on the above mentioned date,he is now trying to make false claims. On this ground itself this complaint is liable to be dismissed.

               At the same time,OP2 filed written version and totally denied the allegations in toto.The OP2 admitted that the complainant visited OP on,13/02/2017 with the problem of ringing issue and dislocation of camera. As has been already submitted in the preliminary objections that the OP never repaired the handset on its own and if on physical examination of the iPhone it is found to be genuinely defected having a manufacturing defect, a job sheet is provided to the customer and the said handset will be sent to Apple Repair Centre for its repair/replacement, whatsoever is required. The answering OP is mere a outsource of the Apple Company to facilitate between customer and the company. It is further submitted that OP took the handset of complainant and sent the same to Apple repair centre at Banglore on the very same day,i.e.13/02/2017 and the display of the said iPhone was replaced. It is further submitted that OP received the handset of complainant from Apple Repair Centre,Banglore on,23/02/2017 and on the very same day  informed complainant to receive the same but complainant collected his iPhone from the OP on,27-02-2017.It is further submitted that Apple Repair Centre,Banglore,replaced the entire display assembly of the iPhone and sent it back to OP and the same was handed over to complainant. Further stand of OP2 is that complainant took his handset from OP on, 27/02/2017 after appending his signature on the job sheet on being fully satisfied with the service of OP.It is once again reiterated that the entire display assembly of the handset of complainant was replaced and complainant thereafter never visited the service centre.

                      The complainant adduced evidence by way of duly sworn his own affidavit and affidavits of Wasim Ahmed Khan and Tarun Mahajan,respectively.The complainant has placed on record copy of retail invoice, copy of job sheet and copy of warranty extension letter.

                       OP1 adduced evidence by way of duly sworn affidavit of Priyesh Poovanna Country Legal Counsel Apple India Ltd.

                   In rebuttal OP2 has produced affidavit of Rahul Kumar Branch Incharge FI Info Solution & Services Pvt.Ltd.

                 We have perused case file and heard L/Cs for the parties at length.

                                   After hearing L/Cs for parties and perusing the case file, in our opinion dispute hinges around the point, as to whether or not there is any deficiency in service on the part of Ops, in failing to provide after sale service.

              Admittedly, complainant approached Ops 1&2 for removal of alleged defects,however,Ops 1&2 came up with the version that alleged defects were not covered under warranty. In support of alleged defence,Ops have filed evidence affidavits of  Priyesh Poovanna and Rahul Kumar and testimony of witness of Ops 1&2  more or less is reproduction of contents of written version of Ops,therefore,same need no reiteration.

                         In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that failure of Ops to redress the grievance of complainant amounts to deficiency in service on their part,therefore,it would meet the ends of justice, in case complainant would be repaid cost of handset, but on scanning the case file, it came to fore that handset was purchased by the complainant, on,05-03-2016,whereas,complainant for the first time approached OP2, with the complaint, in the month of February,2017,i.e.after making use of handset about eleven months. It is a matter of common knowledge that electronic items, particularly gadgets like in hand, after some time are sold on reduced value. Like wise, complainant used handset for eleven months, definitely its present value can by no stretch of imagination still would be Rs.47,000/-,therefore,we proposed to settle complaint for sum of Rs.38,000/-,inclusive of all heads.

                         Therefore, in view of aforesaid discussion, the complaint filed by the complainant for redressal of his grievance is allowed and OP 1is directed to refund an amount in the sum of Rs.38,000/- to complainant, who shall return the mobile phone, alongwith accessories to OP1. The Ops 1 shall comply the order, within one month, from the date of receipt of this order. The unit in question returned to the OP1 in a perfect condition without breakage. Copy of this order be provided to both the parties, as per requirement of the Act. On deposit of the amount in this Forum, the same shall be paid to the complainant through payees account cheque.The complaint is accordingly, disposed of and file be consigned to records after its due compilation.

Order per President                                              Khalil Choudhary

                                                                         (Distt.& Sessions Judge)

Announced                                                              President

 09 -10-2018                                                   District Consumer Forum

Agreed by                                                                Jammu.

 

Ms.Vijay Angral          

Member        

 

Mr.Ghulam Sarwar Chauhan,

Member