Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 7
Instituted on : 02.01.2023
Decided on : 28.07.2023
Renu age 45 years, d/o Late Sh. Madan Lal R/o H.No.2432, New Housing Board, Sector-1, Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Apple Mobile Phones(Apple.com) having its registered office at 19th Floor, Concorde Tower C, UB City, No. 24, Vittal Mallya Road, Bangalore 560001, India through its authorized peson/Director.
- Unicorn Infosolutions Pvt. Ltd., Shop No. 1, DLF Cyber Hub, Cyber City, Sector-25, Gurgaon-122001. Mobile No.9717744269. sales@uipl.co.in.
- DIGICARE Services, Apple Service Centre situated at Shop No.106, Sheetal Livestyle Mall, Model Town, Rohtak.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 35 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,2019
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Nitin Goel, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. R.K.Jangra, Advocate for opposite party No. 1.
Opposite party no. 2 already given up v.o.d 12.04.2023.
Sh.Devki Nandan Sharma Advocate for opposite party no. 3.
ORDER
TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER:
1. Brief facts of the complainant as per complainant are that she purchased a mobile phone Make Apple iPhone 12 64 GB Black(353054112714324) vide Invoice No. UCH202101970 dated 06.11.2020 for an amount of Rs.79900/-. From the very beginning, phone started created problem and the same was not functioning. The said phone was having a problem in the speaker. The complainant approached the opposite party regarding problem of the phone, then the opposite party told that there must be an issue of networking and due to which the complainant might not have receiving the proper voice. The complainant relied upon the same, but the problem was continuing one and there was no solution in this regard. Then complainant went to service centre of the opposite party and handed over the phone for removing the defect, then she was informed by the service Centre that there is some issue in speaker of this Model and the concerned person advised the complainant to transfer the whole data of mobile phone in some other device. In the month of July 2022, the complainant handed over the phone to the authorized service centre and the speaker was replaced without any cost. But soon after the replacement of the speaker, the software was also updated. After replacement of the speaker, the phone was working in a proper manner. The complainant received a message for updating the software and after updation of the software the speaker of the mobile phone again started to create same problem. After the replacement, the company provides a 90 days service warranty or the reminder of warranty or Apple care agreement whichever is longer. It is submitted that the part was replaced free of cost as the same was having some manufacturing/technical defect in the said model. The complainant again approached the service centre of the company and they demanded Rs.1500/- for curing the defect which is against the policy of the warranty. Thereafter the complainant approached the office of the opposite party no. 3 to replace the mobile phone as the same is having some manufacturing defect, but no one is paying any heed to the request of the complainant. The act of opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to replace the defective part of Apple i-Phone without any charges and to extend the guarantee, or to replace the defective iPhone or alternatively to refund the amount of invoice i.e. Rs.79900/- alongwith interest @12%p.a. from the date of invoice to the date of making the actual payment. It is further prayed that opposite parties be also directed to pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation, to pay Rs. 11,000/- on account of Advocate fee and an amount of Rs.2500/- on account of other litigation expenses.
2. After registration of complaint, notices were issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party No. 1 appeared and filed its written reply submitting therein that the complainant visited opposite party no. 3 in July 2022, whereas the phone was purchased on 06.11.2020. It is inconceivable that if the subject iPhone was facing problem since purchase, the complainant would have waited for more than 18 months to approach the opposite party no.3. The repair assistance form dated 06.07.2022 and the service report dated 05.07.2022 clearly shows that opposite party no. 3 indeed provided free of charge repair services to the complainant. Opposite party no. 3 allegedly demanding a sum of Rs.1500/- on second visit. It is submitted that the complainant has not adduced any evidence of her alleged second visit to the opposite party no.3. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3. Opposite party no. 3 appeared and submitted its reply submitting therein that they replaced the speaker of the device and also updated the software of device. After updation of the software the said device was handed over to the complainant, and after investigation/satisfaction of the said device, device was handed over to the complainant. It is submitted that complainant approached the opposite party no. 3 first time on 05.07.2022. It is further submitted that after examination and inspection, the handset was duly repaired free of cost as per the warranty provision and duly returned to the complainant in proper working condition. It is further submitted that complainant never approached to opposite party no. 3 after 05.07.2022, if the complainant would have approached the opposite party no. 3 they would have any job sheet. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint. However, the complainant had given up opposite party no. 2 being unnecessary vide his separate statement dated 12.04.2023.
4. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C2 and has closed his evidence on dated 15.05.2023. Ld. Counsel for the opposite parties No. 1 has tendered affidavit Ex.DW1/A, documents Ex.DW1/1 to Ex.DW1/2 and closed his evidence on dated 25.05.2023. Ld. Counsel for the opposite party no. 3 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW2/A, documents Ex.RW2/1 and closed his evidence on dated 15.06.2023.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the written submissions filed by opposite party No.1 & 3 as well as material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. As per bill Ex.C1, complainant had purchased the mobile phone for a sum of Rs.79900/-. As per complaint and affidavit filed by the complainant, initially there was problem in the speaker, which was replaced in the month of July 2022, but after some time it again started to create problem. Complainant again approached the service center of the company but the opposite party demanded an amount of Rs.1500/- to transfer the data whereas the mobile was within warranty period. It has been specifically mentioned in the complaint that for transferring of data of iPhone, an another iPhone is required. In another phone there are so many chances of deletion of data and cannot be properly transferred. It has not been mentioned by the opposite party either in the affidavit or in the written statement that the mobile in question was out of warranty. Hence it was the duty of opposite parties to transfer the data of the complainant in safe device but they have not taken any action and has demanded an amount of Rs.1500/- for replacement of speaker or to cure the problem of sound, which is illegal and there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Moreover, as per Ex.RW2/1, the problem reported by the customer is ‘receiver no sound’ but in repair remarks it is mentioned that “iphone display replaced’. In fact it has not been requested on the part of the complainant that there was a problem in the display. After mechanical examination of the phone, the engineer replaced the display of the phone and also repaired the speaker but even after repair, the same did not work, due to which the sound not received in the speaker. Hence the complainant approached two times in service center of the respondent no.1 regarding the repair of the speaker of the phone but as per our opinion, the speaker could not be repaired by the opposite parties due to manufacturing defect in the iPhone. As such opposite party No.1 being the manufacturer of the mobile set is liable to refund the price of mobile set after deduction of 25% as depreciation amount i.e. to pay Rs.79900/- less 25%= Rs.59925/-. Hence the law cited by ld. counsel for the opposite party no.1 of Hon’ble Supreme Court in MANU/SC/0566/2009 titled as Ludhiana Improvement Trust, Ludhiana and Ors., Vs. Shakti Cooperative House Building Society Ltd. and (2000)1SCC66 titled as Ranveet Singh Bagga Vs. KLM Royal Duch Airlines and Ors. are not fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case.
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party no.1 to pay the amount of Rs.59925/-(Rupees fifty nine thousand nine hundred and twenty five only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 02.01.2023 till its realisation and also to pay Rs.10000/-(Rupees ten thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision. However, complainant is directed to hand over the mobile in question alongwith accessories to the opposite party no.1 at the time of making payment by the opposite party No.1.
7. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
28.07.2023.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
...............................................
Tripti Pannu, Member.
