Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/149/2019

Priyanka Puri - Complainant(s)

Versus

Apple (India) - Opp.Party(s)

A.P.S. Rana

02 Dec 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/149/2019
Date of Institution	:	13/03/2019
Date of Decision	:	02/12/2021

 

Priyanka Puri aged about 23 years, D/o Sh.Ajay Puri, R/o House No.238, Jamuna Enclave, Zirakpur, Distt. SAS Nagar, Mohali.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. Apple (India) through Mr.Ashish Chaudhary, Country Head in India, 19^th Floor, Concorde Tower-C, UB City, No.24, Vittal Malya Road, Bangaluru-560001.
2. Anmol Watches and Electronic Pvt. Ltd. Regd. Office SCO No.1012-13, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh, through its Proprietor/Partner.
3. Unicorn Info solutions Pvt. Ltd., SCO No.315-316, Ground floor, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh, through its Managing Director/Manager.
4. M/s B2X Service Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. SCO No.534, 1^st floor, Sector 70, SAS Nagar Mohali-160071, through its Managing Director/Manager.

… Opposite Parties

CORAM :	RAJAN DEWAN	PRESIDENT
	SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                

ARGUED BY	:	Sh.Rajinder Pandey, Counsel for complainant.
	:	Sh.Devinder Kumar, Counsel for OP No.1.
	:	OP No.2 & 4 ex-parte.
	:	None for OP No.3.

 

Per Surjeet kaur, Member

1.      The long and short of the allegations are that the complainant had purchased Apple I-Phone 7 Plus GSM Gold 128 GB on 22.04.2018 total sum of Rs.67,000/- from the OP No.2. Copy of bill is annexed as Annexure C-1. The entire cost of the mobile was got financed by the complainant from HDB Financial services and was paid on 22.04.2018. The mobile is having full warranty of one year and if any problem detected in the mobile, the same be repaired free of costs within the warranty. Copy of warranty card is attached as Annexure C-2. After few months the mobile phone started creating problems of clarity in voice and some time voice of the caller was either not at all audible or some time was not clear and vice-versa.  The complainant on 06.12.2018 approached Opposite Party No.3 i.e. customer care of Opposite Party No.1 and disclosed the problems. The Opposite Party No.3 kept the cell phone of the complainant and ultimately returned the same after repairs on 10.12.2018, copy of job invoice is annexed as Annexure C-3.

         Thereafter the same problem persisted in the mobile and the complainant visited and also telephonically contacted Opposite Party No.4 and requested for immediately repairing the mobile and for returning the same to the complainant. But the same was not returned after repair to the complainant on the pretext the mobile set has been sent to the company engineers for checkup and repair and the mobile phone is still lying with the OPs. The complainant was forced to serve a legal notice to the Opposite Parties, which was send through registered post on 28.01.2019, copy of which is annexed as Annexure C-6. Reply to this legal notice is Annexure C-9 sent by Opposite Party No.4. The complainant has suffered unnecessary harassment, mental tension, agony and his precious time and money has been wasted without any fault on his part. Alleging it to be a clear unfair trade practice and deficiency in service the complainant filed this present complaint.

2.     Opposite Party No.1 contested the consumer complaint. The Opposite Party No.1 does give a one year warranty on its products; the warranty will apply as long as the terms and conditions of the warranty are followed by the complainant. Terms and conditions are annexed as Annexure R-1. In the present case the complainant had damaged her mobile due to which it was rendered out of warranty and cannot be repaired or replaced under the warranty. The photos taken during the inspection showing the damage are collectively produced as Annexure R-2. The complainant was informed that his iPhone was out of warranty and could not be repaired under the warranty. The complainant is making an unsubstantiated claim that there is a manufacturing defect. The complainant without any sort of technical proof or certified document from a Govt. Authority cannot make any such claim with respect to the technical supremacy of the quality of the iPhone.  The complainant has damaged her iPhone which is evident by the photos and service report. Hence, on this ground itself this complaint is liable to be dismissed.
3.     Opposite Party No.3 contested the consumer complaint. The complainant phone was fully diagnosed and corrected as per the satisfaction of the complainant and same was returned to the complainant in ok condition. Thereafter the complainant never visited the Opposite Party No.3 regarding any problem in the said phone. The complainant phone was fully functioning as per the technical requirements laid by Apple India Pvt. Ltd. and no malfunctioning was there in the said phone after rectification. The complainant never visited the office of Opposite Party No.3 for any issue after her visit on 06.12.2018. Hence, the complaint of the complainant may please be dismissed against Opposite Party No.3. All the allegations leveled against them on the grounds being false and misconceived information.
4.     Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties No.2 & 4 seeking their version of the case. However, nobody appeared on behalf of Opposite Parties No.2 & 4 despite following proper procedure therefore, they were proceeded ex-parte on 10.05.2019.
5.     Rejoinder was filed and averments made in the consumer complaint were reiterated.
6.     Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
7.     We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case. After perusal of record, our findings are as under:-
8.     It is evident from Annexure C-1 that the complainant paid an amount of Rs.67,000/- on 22.04.2018 to buy an Apple iPhone 7 Plus from Opposite Party No.2. Annexure C-3 dated 06.12.2018 is the job-sheet with the problem reported as “Low sound to called person”. As per the case of the complainant the defect was removed and handset in question was handed over to the complainant back after repairs on 10.12.2018. Thereafter again the same kind of problem persisted and the complainant approached Opposite Party No.4 (one another authorized service centre of Opposite Party No.1) on 26.12.2018. As per the complaint the handset in question is still lying with Opposite Party No.4.
9.     The stand taken by the Opposite Party No.1, (the manufacture) is that it gives only one year warranty to its product. In the present case the mobile was suffering the physical damage and could not be repaired or replaced under warranty. Annexure R-2 are the photographs of the damaged handset. Hence the complaint needs to be dismissed.
10.     On the other hand, Opposite Party No.3 the authorized service centre of Opposite Party No.1 has taken the stand that the problem in the handset was diagnosed and was corrected as per the satisfaction of the complainant and thereafter the same was returned to the complainant in perfect condition. Hence there is no merit in the complaint.
11.     After going through the documents, evidently the handset in question was purchased from Opposite Party No.2 on 22.04.2018 and after 8 months it needed small repair which was conducted by Opposite Party No.3, as per satisfaction of the complainant. Job-sheet is annexed as Annexure C-3. Perusal of the Annexure C-4 the job-sheet issued by Opposite Party No.4 clearly reveals that again the problem was of mike only and in the column condition of equipment it is written that the same is needed to be inspected internally. Annexure C-6 is the legal notice by the complainant to the Opposite Parties dated 28.01.2019 to which the Opposite Parties replied as Annexure C-9. In the reply of the Opposite Party No.1 there is mention that after inspecting device on 26.12.2018 it was found that the unit was beyond the economical repair and the complainant was informed that Opposite Party No.1 will not cover the repair under warranty.

         But as per version of Opposite Party No.1, there is no such mention of ‘physical damage’ over the job-sheet Annexure C-4 issued by Opposite Party No.4. No expert evidence is annexed which proves the physical damage in the handset. Hence, the act of OPs for not providing proper services to the complainant within warranty period, keeping the same in their own possession till date proves deficiency in service.

12.     Significantly, Opposite Parties No.2 to 4 did not appear to contest the claim of the complainant and preferred to proceed against ex-parte. This act of the Opposite Parties No.2 to 4 draws an adverse inference against them. The non-appearance of the Opposite Parties No.2 to 4 shows that they have nothing to say in their defence against the allegations made by the complainant. Therefore, the assertions of the complainant go unrebutted and uncontroverted.   
13.     In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly partly allowed. OPs are directed as under :-

1. To handover the defect free/repaired hand set to the complainant or

in case of their inability to handover the repaired handset, the OPs will return a brand new set of same make/model/configuration to the complainant.

2. to pay an amount of ₹3,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to her;
3. to pay ₹3,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

14.     This order be complied with by the OPs within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
15.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-	Sd/-
02/12/2021	[Surjeet Kaur]	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Rajan Dewan]
Ls	Member	Member	President