Haryana

Ambala

CC/75/2015

Neena Aggarwal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Base 39 - Opp.Party(s)

Ashutosh Aggarwal

27 May 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM : AMBALA

                        Complaint Case No.             :       75  OF 2015

                        Date of Institution                :       19-03-2015

                        Date of Decision                  :        27.05.2016

 

Neena Aggarwal wife of Sh. Arun Aggarwal, resident of  H.No.5551, Pansari Bazar, Ambala Cantt.

                                                                                                                                                        :::::::Complainant.

                                                                                 Versus

 

1.             Base 39 Mobile Communication, Nicholson Road, Near Nigar Cinema, Ambala Cantt through its Manager/Proprietor/ Partner/ Owner.

2.             Paramatrix Info Solutions Pvt. Ltd. S.C.O.112-113, G.F., Sector 34-A, Chandigarh-160022 through its owner/Manager/ General Manager.

3.             Apple India Private Limited,19^th Floor, Concorde Tower C UB City, No.24, Vittal Mallya Road, Bangalore 560001. Karnatka through  its Manager/Proprietor/ Partner/ Owner.

::::::: Respondents.

 

        Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

CORAM:              SH.A.K.SARDANA, PRESIDENT

                             SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER

 

Present:-            Sh. Ashutosh Aggarwal, Adv. counsel for complainant

                        Sh. Puneet Mittal, Adv. counsel for OP No.1

                        Sh. Varinder Masih, Adv. counsel for OP No.2

                        Sh. Rajiv Sachdeva, Adv.counsel  for OP No.3.

               

O R D E R

 

1.           Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant purchased  Apple 4S Mobile bearing IMEI/MEID No. 013532007579714, Serial No.DX3N55ZEFML 6 vide bill No.24036 dated 5-1-2015 in a sum of Rs.20,000/- with a warranty of 1 year from OP No.1 with the assurance of good quality hand set. Next day, the said mobile phone started giving problem i.e. heating up excessively and the complainant called upon OP no.1. who suggested to approach OP No.2 which is Authorized Service Centre of OP company and thus complainant visited OP No.2 on 8-1-2015 where the engineer attending the complaint flatly refused to examine the same and after making the numerous requests, service engineer made observations without checking it properly & thoroughly by issuing service report qua upgradation of software though the software was OK. Thereafter on 18-2-2015, complainant again visited the OP No.2 for the same problem after making the complaint to Apple Technical Support vide complaint ID-750415486 dt 17/2/2015 whereupon the complainant was advised to submit his iphone with OP no.2 who issued service report No. 11983  dated  18-2-2015 wherein the same remarks of  “ Still heating up- Problem is same” were reported but on 21-2-2015, complainant received back his iphone with the same problem for which OP no 2 was unable to explain satisfactorily. Due to above said act of OP, it is established that this model of the mobile phone is having a manufacturing defect, which is beyond repairs of the service centre. Hence, having no alternative, complainant preferred the present complaint seeking relief as mentioned in the prayer para.

 

 

2.          Upon notice, OPs appeared before the forum through their respective counsels and submitted reply to the complaint separately raising preliminary objections qua non maintainability of complaint, no locus standi, mis-joinder of parties, abuse of the process of law, no cause of action , no territorial jurisdiction against the answering respondents no.2 & 3 and complainant has not come with clean hands and has suppressed the true & material facts by misrepresenting & misinterpreting  and making false allegations. On merits, it has  been  urged by OP No.3 that OP No.2 is an authorized service centre of OP No.3 where iphone 4 S of the complainant was fully diagnosed/tested and found that there is no problem in the set in question and thus the complainant was suggested for software upgradation but she refused for the same and in these circumstances, the OPs were in no position to do anything further as alleged by the complainant. It has been further urged by the OPs that  they can replace the iphone in question only when there is any hardware issue in the mobile set. The complainant is trying to take advantage of the accommodating attitude of the OPs by making frivolous demands without any concrete proof as alleged. In the end, OPs had prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

 

 

 

3.          To prove her contention , complainant has tendered her affidavit as Annexure C -X alongwith documents as Annexures C-1 to  C-3 and closed the evidence whereas on the other hand, counsel for OPs No. 2 & 3  tendered in evidence affidavits of one Bipin Tiwari, as Annexure R-2/X alongwith documents as Annexures R-2/1 & R-2/2 and affidavit of one Ashish Bali as Annexure R-3/X  and document as Annexure R-3/1 and closed evidence on behalf of OPs No.2 & 3 respectively.

 

 

 

4.           We have heard the learned counsels for both the parties and gone through the case file minutely. The main grievance of the complainant is that he purchased an iphone make Apple 4S bearing IMEI/MEID No. 013532007579714, Serial No.DX3N35ZEFML 6 user friendly phone in a sum of Rs.20,000/- with a warranty of 1 year from the OPs. After some time, the said mobile phone started giving heating problem and failed to perform its functions satisfactorily wherefrom it was established that this model of the mobile phone is having a manufacturing defect, which is beyond the repairs of service centre.  On the other hand OP’s counsels argued that OP company is the reputed company and provides world class service to its customers and the complainant has filed frivolous complaint since there is no fault in the Mobile set in question as it requires only upgradation of software to which the complainant refused and requested for dismissal of complaint.

 

 

5.           At the very outset, it is crystal clear from the document Annexure C-1 that the mobile set in question of Apple 4S  was  sold  by OP No.1 to the complainant on 5-1-2015. Further, it is also not in dispute that the mobile set was having a warranty of one year from the date of its purchase and it was deposited at service centre of OP company within a period of 4/5 days during the warranty period as the problem of heating up has been specifically reported on the job cards (Annexure C-2 & C-3) by the complainant but at the same time OP’s Engineer have specifically reported in Clause ‘Diagnose Details’ that “ Device running an old O.S. customer refused to restore the device software without which further diagnosis not possible” and also tendered affidavit in this regard as Annexure R-2/X of one Bipin Tiwari, Engineer of OP company whereas complainant has not filed affidavit of any Mechanic or Engineer to prove his contention i.e. defects, if any, in the mobile set in question which was necessarily to be submitted as per section 13 (1) of C.P.Act.

 

                So, from the above discussed facts, we have come to the conclusion that it is nowhere proved that the iphone in question was having any manufacturing defect/ inherent defect as alleged in the complaint since no any document or even report of any expert has been produced  by the complainant to prove his contention. Further, the Engineer of OP company has specifically stated in para no.2 of affidavit that “the iphone  in question was required upgradtion of the software to which the complainant herself has flatly refused which can be seen in Annexure R-1” and thus the software of the set in question was not updated by the OPs. As such, we have no hesitation in holding that OPs are not at fault as alleged rather complainant has miserably failed to prove her case and thus we have no option except to dismiss the present complaint. Accordingly, the present complaint is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced: 27.05.2016                                                    

                                                                                               Sd/-

                                                                                          ( A.K.SARDANA)

                                                                                                      PRESIDENT

                                                     Sd/-

                                       ( PUSHPENDER KUMAR )

                                                               MEMBER