DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, EAST, Govt of NCT Delhi
CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, 1st FLOOR, SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI 110092
Consumer complaint no. - 716/2014
Date of Institution 08/08/2014
Date reserved on - 22/09/2016
Date of Order - 23/09/2016
In matter of
Ms Shraddha, adult
R/o- 42, Guru Angad Nagar Extn.
Laxmi Nagar, Delhi 110092…………..…..………..……………….Complainant
Vs
1- M/s Vijay Sales
A-18, Swasthay Vihar,
Vikas Marg, Delhi-110092
2- M/s Future World Retail India Pvt Ltd.
N-9, Outer Circle, Connaught Place,
New Delhi, 110001
3-The Managing Director-Apple India
Corporate Office- 19th Floor, Concorde Tower C,
UB City, no.24, Vittal Malya Road,
Banglore-560001…………………….…………….…….…….……Respondents
Complainant Advocate………………………………In Person
Opponent 1/ Vijay Sales……….……………………RK Gupta
Opponent 2/Future World………………………..Anand M Mishra
Opponent 3/ Apple India…………………………..The Vidhi Law Firm/Sanjay Agnihotri
Quorum …….Sh Sukhdev Singh …….. President
Dr P N Tiwari ………..Member
Mrs Harpreet Kaur ……….Member
Order by Dr P N Tiwari, Member
Brief Facts of the case
Complainant purchased one Apple mobile model no I Phone 4S Black on 17/01/2014 from OP1 having IEMI no. 013207009026010 for a sum of Rs 26,500/-and one smart mobile Samsung for additional Rs 5000/-.
After three month of its use, Apple mobile was getting hot up during charging and battery was getting discharged quickly. So, complainant lodged a complaint ID no 63943094 on 24/07/2014 to OP2. Complainant was asked to pay Rs 11,000/- for its repair but complainant refused to pay and perused the matter with OP3, later defective mobile was replaced by a new hand set vide sn DQJMW004FML6 by OP2. It was stated that the replaced mobile was not a new one, but it was repaired old phone. Complainant annexed a retail invoice and job card.
After some time, the replaced phone was also got charging problem and stopped working. Complainant again lodged a fresh complaint with OP2 vide complaint no ID 643150297. OP2 again asked to pay a sum of Rs 11,000/- for replacing for a new phone.
Complainant was not satisfied with the services offered by OP2 and OP3, hence he filed this complaint claiming refund of sum of Rs 31500/- with sum of Rs 50,000/- as compensation and Rs 15,000/- as litigation charges. .
After scrutinizing the complaint, notices were served. All OPs submitted their written statements denying allegations brought in the case with facts and evidences. OP1 through its authorized representative submitted that the Apple mobile phone was purchased by the complainant from their outlet and they were the authorized seller of the product.
OP1 stated that they did not have authority to replace the phone of OP3 or give compensation to complainant. OP2 submitted written statement and denied all the allegations of complainant. It was admitted that they were the authorized service provider of OP3 and said product/apple mobile was an imported product which was imported by OP3 in India. OP2 stated that they provide a good quality services to their customers. Here, complainant had brought the said mobile phone which had broken charging socket though the mobile was under warranty, but OP3 had no policy to replace the product until had a manufacturing defect. Still mobile was replaced by a refurbished mobile phone. It was done a good gesture toward their valuable customers and replacement was done on the advice of OP3 leaving all terms and conditions.
OP3 admitted that complainant had purchased the said mobile from their authorized seller and was brought for service at OP2. OP3 submitted that the mobile phone had dock connector pins were severely damaged and such damages were not covered under the warranty still new phone was provided when complainant refused to pay for new phone. It was stated that such damages occur when charging pin was inserted wrongly or forcefully inserted for charging. OP3 had also annexed the photo of damaged socket marked here as ExDW3/2. OP3 had also rewrote the extract of warranty clause which was as—
“This warranty does not apply:- (a) to consumable parts, such as batteries or protecting coating that are designed to diminish over time, unless failure has occurred due to a defect in materials or workmanship:
(b) to cosmetic damage, including but not limited to scratches, dents and broken plastic on ports:
(c)-to damage caused by accident, abuse, misuse, liquid contact, fire, earthquake or other external cause;
(e)-to damage caused by operating the Apple product outside Apple’s published guidelines:
(f)- to damage caused by service (including upgrades and expositions):
Performed by anyone who is a not a representative of Apple or an Apple authorized service provider(AASP),
(g)-to an Apple product that has been modified to alter functionality or capability without the written permission of Apple:
(h)-to defects caused by normal wear and tear or otherwise due to the normal aging of the Apple product, or
(i)- if any serial number has been removed or defaced from the Apple product.”
OP3 had annexed a copy of warranty as Ex DW3/3. OP3 stated that physically damaged I phone were not under their product warranty still phone was replaced first time as a one-time exception, but again the replaced phone had same damage for which replacement was denied. OP3 further stated that if any manufactured defect was seen, replacement done, but not in physical damages. Hence stated that the facts brought before this Forum were totally baseless and this complaint be dismissed. Complainant filed their evidences on affidavit which were on record.
Arguments were heard and order was reserved.
We have perused all the facts and evidences on record, it was accepted by the OP2 and 3 that the said mobile had physical damages twice and both the damages were of same nature. It was also seen that OP2 had replaced the mobile even such damages were not covered under warranty, but complainant brought the same defect in replaced phone, replacement was denied. More so, complainant had submitted one job sheet where it was mentioned that the defective product was replaced. Therefore, there are no merits in complaint and as complainant has failed to prove deficiency in the services of OPs, so this complaint deserve dismissal and the same is dismissed without any cost.
The copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules and file be consigned to the record room.
Mrs Harpreet Kaur (Dr) P N Tiwari
Member Member
Shri Sukhdev Singh
President
