| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BATHINDA C.C.No. 302 of 16-09-2022 Decided on : 03-04-2024 Ravinder Sharma alias Soni S/o Jagdish Rai R/o Vill.Maur Charat Singh, Tehsil Maur, Distt. Bathinda. ........Complainant Versus B2X Service Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. (Apple Authorized Service Provider) SCF 23, Ground Floor, Model Town, Phase-2, Part-2, Urban Estate, Bathinda, through its Authorized Signatory. Apple India Pvt. Ltd., UB City, 19th Floor, Concorde Tower C, Vittal Mallya Rd., Bangaluru-560001.
.......Opposite parties Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 QUORUM Smt. Priti Malhotra, President Smt. Sharda Attri, Member Present : For the complainant : Sh.Prince Jindal, Advocate. For opposite parties : Opposite party No.1 ex-parte. Sh.Sandeep Baghla, counsel for OP No.2 ORDER Priti Malhotra, President The complainant Ravinder Sharma alias Soni (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint U/s 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (here-in after referred to as 'Act') before this Commission against B2X Service Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. and another (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties). Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he purchased one mobile handset make Apple i-phone 12 of 128 GB (Black) bearing FSN No.MOBFWBYZK3HACR72 and HSN/SAC: 85171211, bearing IMEI No.353033111682302 for Rs.55,999/- vide invoice dated 15.10.2021 by making online booking vide order ID: OD123009780112376000 dated 3.10.2021 with one year full warranty. It is alleged that at the time of purchase of the mobile handset, the complainant was assured that it is of best quality and there is no complaint from any corner regarding its quality and company will provide best services in case of any problem in its functioning. The complainant was also assured by the authorized representatives of opposite party No.2 that in case of any problem in the functioning of the mobile handset during warranty period, he shall provide stand-by mobile handset for use and the mobile handset well remain with opposite parties for the service. It is further alleged that after purchase of the mobile handset, the complainant started using the same for personal use and also for his business purposes, but the mobile handset did not prove to be of good quality as it started creating problem in the recharge socket and it did not use to get recharge despite being connected to the charger for hours together and used to switch-off soon after its use as its battery did not use to get charged. It is further alleged that on 6.7.2022, the brother of the complainant took the mobile handset to opposite party No.1 and reported the complaint regarding the problem in the socket. After minutely checking the mobile handset, the opposite party No.1 retained the mobile handset vide job card dated 6.7.2022 and assured the complainant to return it back within 15 days and failed to provide him any stand-by mobile handset despite demand, rather opposite party No.1 proclaimed that no such mobile handset is available with it. Having no other alternative, the complainant and his brother were forced to handover the mobile handset to opposite party No.1 for service. It is further alleged that thereafter the complainant and his brother visited the office of opposite party No.1 and enquired about the mobile handset, but it kept on putting the matter off one one or the other pretext and ultimately on 19.7.2022, it proclaimed that the mobile handset cannot be repaired by it, rather it is required to be sent to Bangalore Branch of the company. The complainant bonafidely gave consent and accordingly, the mobile handset was reported to be sent to the Branch Office Bangalore vide job card dated 19.7.2022 and he was assured that the mobile handset shall be provided back to him upto 25.8.2022. Thereafter the complainant and his brother again visited the office of opposite party No.1 from 19.7.2022 to 25.8.2022 for 3/4 times, but it failed to provide him mobile handset on the pretext that the mobile handset has yet not been received back and assured that the mobile handset shall be repaired and provided to the complainant upto 25.8.2022 but on 25.8.2022, the mobile handset was returned back to him without repairing and providing any service, rather opposite parties told that the mobile handset is physically damaged and is out of warranty, although no such objection was earlier raised by opposite party No.1 first only on 6.7.2022 and then on 19.7.2022 and the mobile handset was retained by opposite party No.1 after minutely checking on 6.7.2022. On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has prayed for directions to opposite parties to replace the mobile handset with new one with fresh warranty or in alternative to refund him total amount of Rs.55,999/- and to pay Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation and Rs.22,000/- as litigation expenses. Upon notice, none appeared on behalf of opposite party No.1. As such, ex-parte proceedings were taken against it. Upon notice, opposite party No.2 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written version and raising legal objections that the complaint is ex-facie, frivolous, misconceived, motivated, devoid of any merit and baseless both in fact and law. The complainant has filed the complaint with mala-fide intention only to harass opposite party No.2 seeking undue benefits in violation of law as well as seeking to unjustly enrich himself by making false, concocted, misconceived and misleading claims/allegations against opposite party No.2. The complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed in limine on this ground alone. The complaint is not maintainable in law in as much as vide the complaint, the complainant on a completely baseless and unsubstantiated averment seeks to allege that opposite party No.2 is indulging in 'unfair trade practices'. The complainant has failed to substantiate as to how does any of the activities/business practices adopted by opposite party No.2 falls under the definition of 'unfair trade practices' as provided U/s 2 (47) of Act'. Mere bald allegations made by a party are not sufficient unless the party prima-facie establishes the same by placing on record evidence that substantiates such allegations. It is further pleaded that the complaint is not maintainable in law in as much as the complainant was solely responsible for the 'physical damage/accidental damage' caused to the Apple iPhone 12 128 GB (Black) purchased from Shreyash Retail Private Limited on 15.10.2021 and with a mala fide intention, he approached this Commission by completely suppressing and concealing his own negligent conduct/misuse and carelessness. Opposite party No.2 has also raised preliminary objections that subject phone was accompanied by a one (1) year manufacturer warranty (Apple Warranty) issued by OP2 to all its customers. Apple warranty provided by opposite party No.2 to its customers only covers within its coverage defects in materials and workmanship i.e. any manufacturing defect and as stated above, exclude defects which have arisen due to any 'accidental damage' caused to the product. It is further pleaded that the complainant has falsely claimed that he has suffered financial loss, mental agony and harassment due to the services provided by opposite party No.2. The complainant's grievances and queries were completely addressed and promptly resolved by opposite party No.2 and false claim of mental agony, financial loss and harassment does not arise at all. On inspection of the subject iPhone, it was discovered that the charging port of the subject iPhone was physically damaged and hence the subject iPhone was out of warranty. The said findings were unequivocally communicated to the complainant that the subject iPhone was only eligible for repair subject to payment of certain costs. On merits, opposite party No.2 has reiterated its version as taken in the legal objection as detailed above and controverted all other averments of the complainant and prayed for dismissal of complaint. In support of her complaint, the complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit dated 15.9.2022, (Ex.C1) and documents, (Ex.C2 to Ex.C6). In order to rebut the evidence of complainant, the opposite party No.2 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Sandeep Karmakar dated 28.7.2023 (Ex.OP2/1) and documents, (Ex.OP-2/2 to Ex.OP-2/6). We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the file carefully. Learned counsel for parties have reiterated their stand as taken in their respective pleadings as detailed above. We have given careful consideration to these submissions. It is well proved on record that the complainant purchased one mobile handset make Apple i-phone 12 of 128 GB (Black) for Rs.55,999/- vide invoice dated 15.10.2021, (Ex.C2). The complainant has produced service report dated 6.7.2022, (Ex.C3) in which it is mentioned in column 'Problem Description:-Intermittently device stop charging wired'. It is further mentioned regarding condition of equipment in this service report that 'General usage minor colour fade from sides'. This service report proves that the mobile handset was creating problem within the warranty period. As such, opposite parties were liable to provide services for the mobile handset in question within the warranty period. This service report does not prove that there was any physical damage to the mobile handset as has been alleged by opposite party No.2. Now, question is regarding relief for which the complainant is entitled to. The complainant has prayed for replacement of the mobile handset with new one or refund of its price by alleging manufacturing defect in it. He has purchased the mobile handset on 15.10.2021 and defect occurred in it on 6.7.2022 as per service report, meaning thereby, he has used the mobile handset for more than 8 months without any difficulty. There is no evidence to prove any manufacturing defect. Therefore, the complainant is not entitled to replacement of the mobile handset with new one or refund of its price. Accordingly, present complaint is partly allowed with Rs.5000/- as cost and compensation against opposite parties. Opposite parties are directed to repair the mobile handset. The compliance of this order be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record room. Announced 03-04-2024 - (Priti Malhotra)
President (Sharda Attri) Member
| |
