SUBHASH filed a consumer case on 03 Aug 2018 against APPLE in the East Delhi Consumer Court. The case no is CC/383/2016 and the judgment uploaded on 27 Sep 2018.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,
SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092
C.C. NO.383/16
SUBHASH MASKARA
16, MAUSAM VIHAR,
DELHI-110051
UB CITY, NO. 24,
VITTAL MALLYA ROAD,
BANGALORE 560001
F-25, 1S5 FLOOR ABOVE KFC, PREET VIHAR,
E 366, 1ST FLOOR AND 2ND FLOOR,
NIRMAN VIHAR, VIKASH MARG.
DELHI 110092 ….Opponents
Date of Institution: 27.07.2016
Judgment Reserved for: 03.08.2018
Judgment Passed on: 24.08.2018
CORUM:
Sh. SUKHDEV SINGH (PRESIDENT)
Dr. P.N. TIWARI (MEMBER
Ms. HARPREET KAUR CHARYA (MEMBER)
ORDER BY: HARPREET KAUR CHARYA (MEMBER)
JUDGEMENT
MacBook service and support coverage, printout of Wikipedia explaining the corrosion, retail invoice in the name of Shri Vikas Chander dated 22.10.2013, warranty certificate dated 22.10.2013, letter of gift dated 26.07.2013, service report dated 22.07.2016 have been annexed with the complaint.
Photograph of the damaged/corroded MLB, service report of dated 22.07.2016, Apple one year warranty with terms and conditions have been annexed with the reply.
Written statement filed on behalf of OP-2, however inadvertently no order was passed for taking the same on record, where they have shared the details of service provided to the complainant on different dates which is being summed up in tabular form.
DATE OF VISIT TO SERVICE CENTER | DATE OF DELIVERY | ||
OS CORRUPT | |||
NOT POWERING ON |
It was further submitted that the device was received on 18.07.2016 with the issue of “not powering on” Job Sheet no. DEL180716223621, with diagnosis details was issued which mentioned as “device received subject to technical verification and will be covered under warranty based on internal checking only if no physical damage/liquid damage and unauthorized modification found in the device”. The complainant was informed regarding the diagnosis of corrosion on MLB on 20.07.2016. It was further submitted that OP-2 tried to contact the complainant several time but was informed by the complainant himself that he was out of station. Rest of the contents of the complaint have been denied.
OP-3 stated that as they were mere retailer and the dispute was between the service centre and the manufacturer, therefore no deficiency in service can be attributed to them.
Smt. Priyesh Povanna, (Country Legal Counsel) was examined on behalf of OP-1 who has deposed on oath the contents of their reply and has placed reliance on Annexure R-1 and Annexure R-2 with their reply.
OP-2 got examined Shri Rahul Kaul, Central Manager of OP-2, who has also reiterated the submissions made in their reply and has got exhibited printout of system generated service report dated 04.05.2015 as Ex.DW2/1 and print out of system generated delivery report dated 05.05.2015 as Ex.DW2/2, printout of system generated service report dated 08.08.2015 and delivery report dated 10.08.2015 as Ex. DW2/3 and Ex. DW2/4 respectively, printout of system generated Jobsheet dated 18.07.2016 as Ex.DW2/5, printout of system generated customer information log as Ex.DW2/6, photo of corrosion found in device as Ex.DW2/7, copy of E.mail dated 25.07.2016 as Ex. DW2/8, and printout of system delivery report dated 26.08.2016 as Ex.DW2/9.
OP-3 failed to file evidence despite opportunity hence their opportunity to file evidence was closed.
Copy of this order be sent to both the parties as per law.
(Dr. P.N. TIWARI) (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)
MEMBER MEMBER
(SUKHDEV SINGH)
PRESIDENT
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.