Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/82/2017

Vibhu Aggarwal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Apple Pvt India Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Piyush Aggarwal

12 Feb 2018

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

 

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/82/2017
Date of Institution	:	27/01/2017
Date of Decision	:	12/02/2018

 

Vibhu Aggarwal S/o Sh. Vinay Kumar Aggarwal, House No.2531, BSNL Telehos Cooperative Society, Sector 50-C, Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

 

V E R S U S

 

[1]     Apple Private India Limited, 19^th Floor, Concorde Tower-C, U.B. City, No. 24, Vittal Mallya Road, Bangalore – 560001, India, through Managing Director.

 

[2]     Paramatrix Info Solutions (Private) Ltd. Apple Service, SCO 112-113, Ground Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh – 160034, through Managing Director.

 

[3]     Unicorn Info Solutions Pvt. Ltd, Shop No.6, Ground Floor, D.T. Mall, DLF City, Chandigarh – 160101, I.T Park, Kishangarh, through Proprietor.

……Opposite Parties

 

QUORUM:	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	PRESIDING MEMBER
	SH.SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                               

                                                                       

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Piyush Aggarwal, Counsel for Complainant.
		Opposite Party No.1 ex-parte.
		Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Counsel for Opposite Party No.2.
		Sh. Rohit Sharma, Technician for Opposite Party No.3.

 

PER SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, MEMBER

1.         Shri Vibhu Aggarwal, Complainant has preferred this Consumer Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against M/s Apple Private India Limited and Others (hereinafter called the Opposite Parties), alleging that going by the various advertisements/ commercials in different modes, about their products, made by the Opposite Party No.1, he purchased an Apple iPhone 6 (Space Grey, 16 GB) on 16.08.2015 for Rs.43,686/- vide bill Annexure C-1.  In August, 2016, on facing problem in the mobile phone, the Complainant get the same fixed from Opposite Party No.2 and had also extended the warranty of the said mobile phone further from Aug. 2016 to Aug. 2017 vide Annexure C-2. Thereafter, in Dec. 2016, when the said mobile phone stopped working properly, the Complainant visited Opposite Party No.3, but to his utter dismay, the product was returned to him, terming the device to be a non-apple product.  With the cup of woes brimming, the Complainant has filed the instant consumer complaint, alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties.
2.         Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case. However, nobody appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.1 despite service, therefore, it was proceeded ex-parte.
3.         Opposite Party No.2 filed reply, inter alia, pleading that Apple India Pvt. Ltd. had withdrawn iPhone service from it w.e.f. 17.09.2016 because of change of policy at their end. It has been admitted that the Complainant brought the mobile phone in question on 8.8.2016. The iPhone was in warranty period and hence was sent to Apple India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore and after free replacement of the display and other defects, if any, the iPhone in question was returned/delivered to the Complainant on 16.08.2016; thereafter, the Complainant never brought the device to the answering Opposite Party. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, Opposite Party No.2 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4.         In its written reply, Opposite Party No.3 has urged that when the mobile phone was taken by the Complainant for repair, it was found that the same was non-apple device and that the Complainant had already repaired it outside the apple company authorized service center, which grossly violates the warranty terms & conditions. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, Opposite Party No.3 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
6.         We have gone through the entire evidence, written arguments submitted by the Complainant and heard the arguments addressed by the Ld. Counsel for the Complainant, Ld. Counsel for Opposite Party No.2 and Sh. Rohit Sharma, Technician of Opposite Party No.3 (Opposite Party No.1 being ex-parte).
7.         On appraisal and appreciating the documentary evidence placed on record by the Complainant himself, we find that at the first instance, the mobile handset in question was repaired by Opposite Party No.2 on 08.08.2016 satisfactorily and they were not authorized to provide any iPhone service from 17.09.2016 onwards. Thereafter, the Complainant approached Opposite Party No.3 in Dec. 2016 with certain problems in the mobile handset. The Technicians of Opposite Party No.3 after opening the mobile handset found that the phone screen was non-apple, which means that the Complainant has already got the mobile handset repaired outside the Apple Company Authorized Service Centre, which is violative of the warranty terms and conditions. We are inclined to believe the version of Opposite Party No.3, in as much as, Opposite Party No.2, in his version has categorically asserted that the mobile handset in question when brought to them, was sent to the Apple India Pvt. Ltd. Bangalore, where free replacement of the display and other defects, if any, was carried out and the mobile handset was delivered back to the Complainant on 16.08.2016 and no charges were collected from the Complainant being in the warranty period. Thus, we find that the whole gamut of facts and circumstances leans towards the side of the Opposite Parties. The case is lame of strength and therefore, liable to be dismissed.
8.         Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, we have no hesitation to hold that the Complainant has failed to prove that there has been any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties or that the Opposite Parties adopted any unfair trade practice. As such, the Complaint is devoid of any merit and the same is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
9.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-
12/02/2018	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]
	Member	Presiding Member
“Dutt”