DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016
Case No. 328/2017
Sh. Amit Bagai
S/o Sh. S. R. Bagai
R/o A-316, Shivalik, Malviya Nagar,
New Delhi-110017 ….Complainant
Versus
1. The General Manager
B2X Service Solutions India Pvt. Ltd.
CG-08, Ansal Plaza, Khel Goan Marg,
New Delhi-110049
2. General Manager (Customer Complaints and Support)
Apple India Private Limited
No.24, 19th Floor, UB City,
Vittal Mallaya Road,
Bangalore-560001
3. General Manager
Xelerate
SG-38, Galleria Shopping Complex,
DLF-IV, Gurugram Haryana-122002 ….Opposite Parties
Date of Institution : 15.09.2017 Date of Order : 04.02.2020
Coram:
Ms. Rekha Rani, President
Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member
ORDER
Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member
- Complainant on the strength of this complaint has claimed that OPs be directed to take the product purchased and refund Rs.21,900/- paid as price of the product alongwith Rs.1,50,000/-towards compensation for harassment and litigation costs. Complainant on 12/11/2016 purchased an IPHONE 5S-16GB manufactured by Apple India Private Limited (OP No.2) from the dealer Xelerate (OP No.3) by paying Rs.21,900/-. It is averred that on 09.08.2017 there was some problem with the display of the screen of the said phone therefore the complainant on 10.08.2017 approached B2X Service Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. (OP No.1), to get the same repaired. It is next averred that OP No.1 after inspecting the said phone refused to entertain the complainant and returned the IPHONE stating that as the phone was pressure damaged it was not covered under the VMI guidelines of the OP No.1. OP No.1 offered to get the phone repaired from backend repair centre on payment of Rs.2,500/- which was not acceptable to the complainant. It is next stated that the warranty condition as notified by OP No.2 on its website did not cover any damage caused by accidents or unauthorized modification. The display screen of the said IPHONE was neither damaged nor broken or even scratched from anywhere. Complainant alleges unfair trade practice stating that if the purported warranty or guarantee given by OP is not carried out this tantamounts to unfair trade practice.
- OP No.1 resisted the complaint by filing its reply wherein it is inter-alia stated that the complainant visited OP No.1 on 10.08.2017 for some issues in the screen of the product in question. The representative of OP No.1 after inspecting the phone told the complainant that the said handset cannot be repaired or replaced under warranty as the problems on the screen are due to pressure damage. OP No.1 submits that the complainant was told that OP No.1 is following the VMI guidelines of OP No.2 wherein it is stated that if there was any accidental or liquid or pressure damage then no free services will be provided under the warranty. OP No.1 further offered the complainant to get the repairs done if the complainant was ready to pay Rs.2,500/- which was declined by the complainant hence OP No.1 after writing the diagnostic details on the delivery report returned the phone as it is to the complainant. The diagnostic details on the delivery report is as follows:
Display is pressure damaged black spots and lines coming on the screen. As per the VMI guidelines it not covered warranty. Hence, device returned without repair in same condition.
Hence, it is prayed that the complainant is not entitled for any relief from OP No.1 as there was no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on its part. Therefore, it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed with costs.
- The claim of the complainant is also resisted and contested by OP No.2 stating inter-alia that the consumers cause damaged to products by external factor which are not associated with the manufacturing/inherent condition of the product and as such which acts are in complete disregard to the breach of policies of the manufacturer they cannot claim relief under the Consumer Protection Act. It is stated that the provisions and terms of the Apple warranty specifically excludes damaged product which is the case in the present matter. OP No.2 has produced an extract of OP No.2’s warranty. The relevant portion of exclusion clause pertaining to the product in question is reproduced below:
This warranty does not apply: (a)………………………
(b)…………………….
(c)……………………
(d) to damage caused by accident, abuse, misused, fire, liquid contract, earthquake or other external cause.
It is reiterated that in the present case complainant used the IPHONE negligently and damaged it, hence it cannot be serviced/replaced under the warranty. It is thus prayed that the present complaint has no cause of action, bears no substance or merits therefore it deserves to be dismissed.
- Replication to the W.S. of OP No.1 and OP No.2 are filed by the complainant. Evidence by way of affidavit is filed by the complainant. Evidence by way of affidavit of Sh. Mohd Shahjahan, Centre Manager on behalf of the OP No.1 and Sh. Priyesh Poovanna, on behalf of OP No.2 have been filed.
- Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the parties.
- We have heard submissions of the complainant and have also gone through the file very carefully.
- Complainant in support his case has annexed retail invoice dated 12.11.2016, warranty conditions of Apple/OP No.2, service report and delivery report dated 10.08.2017 by OP No.1. Admittedly the phone was purchased on 12.11.2016 and the phone had display issues on 10.08.2017. As per the delivery report of OP No.1, the diagnostic details are reproduced as under:
Diagnosis details:
Problem Category | Problem Description | Problem found | Action taken |
Other problem | Lines on screen and black spot on screens | black spot on display and lines | Display is Pressure damaged black spots and lines coming on the screen. As per the apple VMI guidelines it not covered under warranty. Hence, device returned without repair in same condition. |
- Going through the service report and delivery report of OP No.1 it is noticed that the complainant at the first instance was attended and was informed that the display problems like black spots and lines were due to pressure damage and as per the Apple VMI guidelines it is not covered under warranty. The complainant was further offered paid service which was declined by the complainant. It is not a case where OP refused to repair the phone. The complainant was attended immediately and informed regarding the services they could provide under the guidelines given by the manufacturer. Therefore, we cannot accept it to be deficient in service.
- As regard OP No.2 it is very specifically mentioned that as per the warranty provision/term annexed as Annexure R-1 with the written statement, it is specified under provision (d) the phone damaged by accident could not have been repaired under the warranty condition. Provision/Exclusion clause (d) of the warranty is reproduced as under:
This warranty does not apply: (a)………………………
(b)…………………….
(c)……………………
(d) to damage caused by accident, abuse, misused, fire, liquid contract, earthquake or other external cause.
- The claim of the complainant against OP No.2 does not seem justifiable as the complainant used the phone for around eight months before the phone started having problem which leads us to the conclusion that there was no inherent or manufacturing defect in the phone.
- The phone was brought in the Forum and shown to us to by the complainant. There is no denying the fact that there was no cosmetic damage to the phone. However, screen being a delicate & fragile part of the phone can be damaged without an apparent or visible damage. Assessment of the damage of phone of the person sitting on the desk & dealing with such cases on regular basis, cannot be substituted by this Forum. Further, the law is settled that adherence to the instructions contained in the warranty is must and should be followed by the consumers. In Appeal (Civil) No.6277 of 2004 – United India Insurance Co. Ltd. V/s M/s Harchand Rai Chandan, decided on 24.09.2004, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that :-
“ ….. The Policy is a contract between the parties and both parties are bound by the terms of contract. ……………
………..…… The terms of the policy have to be construed as it is and we cannot add or subtract something. Howsoever liberally we may construe the policy but we cannot take liberalism to the extent of substituting the words which are not intended……..”
Similar view has been taken by Hon’ble State Commission, Delhi in complaint case No. 20/1997 - Ajay Industrial Cooperation vs. National Insurance decided on 19.03.2007.
- In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the complaint and accordingly the complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on 04.02.2020
