Haryana

Ambala

CC/16/2019

Avtar Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Country Head Apple India Pvt Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

22 Nov 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

 

                                                          Complaint case No.:  16 of 2019.

                                                          Date of Institution           :  17.01.2019.

                                                          Date of decision    :  22.11.2019.

 

Avtar Singh, aged 46 years, son of Sh. Bant Ram, resident of House No.29 Ganesh Garden, Near Ekta Vihar, Ambala Cantt. 133001, Haryana, Mobile 9034357054.

……. Complainant.

                                                    Versus

 

1. Country Head, Apple India Pvt. Ltd. 19^th Floor, Concorde Tower C, UB City, No.24, Vittal Malya Road Banglore 560001.

Phone No.:080-40455150, E-mail:banglore_admin@apple.com.

2. iQor Global Services India Pvt. Ltd., Shop No.12, Galaxy Mall, Sector-7, Ambala City-134003.

Mob:7290075122, E-mail id:amsapple.ambl@iqor.com.

3. Saya Network, Shop No.5365/66A, Nicholson Road, Near HDFC Bank, Ambala Cantt-133001, Contact:0171-4003939, 9034846771, E-mail id imperia.amb@gmail.com.

     ….…. Opposite Parties.

 

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                   Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member.

Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.         

                            

Present:       Complainant in person.

Shri Rajiv Sachdeva, Advocate, counsel for the OP No.1.

OPs No.2 & 3 already ex parte.

 

ORDER:     SH. VINOD KUMAR SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) praying for issuance of following directions to them:-

1. To replace the defective mobile set.
2. To pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by him.
3. To pay Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses.  
   382.  

                   Any other relief which this Hon’ble Forum may deem fit.

 

Brief facts of the case are that the complainant had purchased an iphone (Gold), SE model, IMEI no.355440073228743, at a cost of Rs.44,000/- vide invoice No.Imperial/Amb/A-2129, dated 02.02.2017, which includes lightening cable besides other accessories from the OP No.3. During the warranty period, the complainant encountered charging related problem with the lightening cable and to get the defect rectified, the complainant approached the Authorized Service Centre of Apple Inc at Ambala City, Haryana i.e. OP No.2 on 17.01.2018 to get the issue resolved either by getting the defect rectified or by getting the defective cable replaced with a new one and the complaint of the complainant was registered as case No.5015611. He was appraised by the in-charge, OP No.2, that the accessories provided with the mobile set are not covered under warranty and, hence, expressed his helplessness to extend any help in that regard but, at the same time, he admitted that the damage to the lightening cable was not due to any negligence in the usage of said cable by him. He requested the OP No.2 to provide him a copy of the terms and conditions, signed and accepted, in lieu of which the latter had claimed that the accessories were not covered under warranty, the service centre in-charge could not give any satisfactory reply and by citing reference to the VMI guidelines, which were neither printed on the packaging material of the asset nor were brought into the complainant’s notice at the time of sale of asset, the OP No.2 refused to entertain the complainant’s claim to get the defect removed or to get the defective cable replace with a new one. Since, the said cable got defective during the warranty period, he again requested the OP No.2 either remove the defect or get the defective cable replaced with a new one but the latter did not pay any heed. The cable got defective during warranty period and that too during its usage in normal course and not due to any negligence on the complainant’s part in its usage, he was entitled either to get the defect removed from the cable or to get the cable replaced with a new one and hence, being aggrieved with the approach of the OP No.2, he corresponded with the company through the concerned email id of Apple vide which he requested the OP No.1 to either get the said defect removed or get the defective cable replaced with a new one. In the meantime, during the warranty period, he encountered battery-draining related problem (The problem was that the battery used to get abruptly drained from 30-50% to 10-15% without any usage) in the mobile set. To get the said problem resolved, he again approached the OP No.2 wherein his complaint was registered as case no.50158032. The OP No.2 did not resolve the problem sincerely and instead, after just updating the software in the name of rectifying the said problem, had handed over the set to the complainant, but, despite having claimed by the OP No.2 to have rectified the said problem, the same problem still existed for which he again approached the OP No.2 and the complaint of the complainant was registered as case No. 50163653. Having diagnosing the problem to be with software, the OP No.2 handed over the set to him after updating the software but, despite having claimed by the OP No.2 to have rectified the said problem, the said problem still existed even after warranty period and when, after expiry of warranty period, he again went to the service centre to get the problem resolved, the service centre refused to entertain his complaint. He had brought his grievance into the notice of the OP No.1 through registered email IDs of the OP No.1, he was advised by OP No.1 to discuss the issue on customer care no.0008001009009. Accordingly, he contacted the customer care through customer care no. 0008001009009 and case was registered as case no.100506442229. OP No.1 had found that the problem was in battery, which had already been raised and reported by him to the service centre during warranty period but, the OP No.2 had wrongly resolved the problem to be with the software due to which the said problem could not be rectified despite having been repaired twice during the warranty period by the OP No.2. Since the battery related problem was raised and complained by the complainant during warranty period and the same has been confirmed by the OP No.1, he is entitled to get the defect rectified free of cost. On 17.04.2018, he had again submitted his written representation to the OP No.1 to replace the defective cable and the mobile set within 15 days from the receipt of said representation but, instead of taking action in this regard, the OP No.1 had closed the case citing the reason that the OP No.1 had tried to contact the complainant on his registered contact no., but he did not take the call from OP No.2.  The mobile set was within the warranty and the OPs failed to rectify its defect. This way, the OPs have committed deficiency in service. Hence, the present complaint.

2.                Upon notice, the OP No.1 appeared through counsel and filed written version raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability etc. On merits, it is stated that OP No.1 is been prompt in providing service through its authorized service provider whenever the complainant had visited them and so there is no question of causing deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.1. Further admitted that complainant purchased the iphone SE Gold, 64GB bearing serial No.F17RHCX2H2Y7 and IMEI No.355440073228743 on 02.02.2017 for a cost of Rs.44,000/-, which includes lightening cable and other accessories from OP No.3. Further stated that as per VMI (Visual Mechanical Inspection) guidelines the customers are need to be careful while using the device as well as the accessories provided with it, and in this case complainant has been negligent in handling the device and hence this resulted into physical damage, which is strictly not covered under the warranty issued by OP No.1. The accessories which comes along with the device does not cover warranty policy. The accessories of this device cannot be replaced with new one. Further admitted that complainant encountered battery draining issues in the device during warranty period. The said issued was resolved by OP No.2 and software in the device was updated and the said issue was resolved and the device was handed over to the complainant in working condition. Whenever the complainant had approached the OP No.2 an authorized service provider of the OP No.1 has been prompt in providing service to the complainant so there is no question of deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1. Despite of the same, the complainant has filed this frivolous complaint by twisting the facts in order to mislead this Hon’ble Forum with an intention to enrich undeserving financial benefits from the OP No.1. Further admitted that complainant had brought his grievance to the notice of the OP No.1 vide email. The complainant was advised to discuss his issue on customer care no.000800100909. Thereafter, the complainant never approached any Apple Authorized Service Centre (AASP) regarding any issues. Further stated that complainant has not produced any sort of evidence in support of his claims. Whenever the complainant visited the authorized service provider of the OP No.1 party for any issues in the device, they have provided the solution for the same. Since, the device was under warranty, the OP No.1 has been prompt in providing service by repairing the device when required under warranty through its authorized service provider whenever the complainant visited them and so there is no question of deficiency in service of unfair trade practice on the part of the OP No.1. Complainant has not suffered any mental agony due to the OP No.1. OP No.1 has not caused any sort of difficulty or loss to the complainant. It is the result of complainant’s negligent handling of the device and not due to the manufacturing defect or due to the deficiency in service. There is no deficiency on the part of OP No.1 and the complaint filed by the complainant against it, may be dismissed.

                    Upon notice, none appeared on behalf of the OPs No.2 & 3 before this Forum, therefore, they were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 27.05.2019.                

3.                The complainant tendered his as Annexure CA alongwith documents as Annexure C1 to C10 and closed his evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP No.1 tendered affidavit as Annexure OP1/A alongwith documents as Annexure OP1/1 & OP1/2 and closed the evidence on behalf of the OP No.1.

4.                We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and carefully gone through the case file.

5.                 The learned counsel for the complainant reiterated the version as mentioned in the complaint and prayed for allowing the present complaint.

6.                Similarly, the learned counsel for the OP No.1 reiterated the version as mentioned in its reply and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

7.                From the perusal of case file and material on record, admittedly, the complainant had purchased the mobile iPhone in question from the OP No.3 for a sum of Rs.44,000/-. The complainant alleged that the mobile in question started giving charging related problem with the lightening cable and in order to get the defect rectified, the complainant went to OP No.2 on 17.01.2018, and requested repeatedly to get the defect rectified by repairing it or by replacing it with a new one. The complainant’s complaint was registered as case no.5015611 and thereafter in-charge of OP No.2 told the complainant that the accessories provided with the mobile set are not covered under warranty and expressed his helplessness to extend any help in that regard, but at the same time, he admitted that the damage to the lightening cable was not due to any negligence in the usage of said cable by the complainant. Further more, during the warranty period, complainant encountered battery draining related problem in the mobile set in question and to resolve this issue he again visited to OP No.2, where his complaint was registered as case No.50158032. the OP no.2 did not resolve the problem sincerely and instead, after just updating the software in the name of rectifying the said problem, had handed over the set to the complainant but, despite having claimed by the OP No.2 to had rectified, the same problem still existed for which the complainant again approached the OP No.2 and the complainant’s complaint was registered as case No.51163653 by OP No.2. Despite being repaired twice within the warranty period, problem was not rectified. Complainant brought his grievance into the notice of the OP No.1 through e-mail and contacted the customer care to resolve the issue, but no action was taken. On the other hand, main argument of the learned counsel for the OP No.1 is that the defect in the mobile is solely due to mishandling by the complainant, for which, the OP No.1 is not responsible. OP No.1 never denied for providing service rather assisted to the complainant whenever he visited to it. The OP No.1 duly informed the complainant that the damage is not covered under the warranty. Accessories provided with the mobile in question does not cover within the warranty period. However, it is pertinent to mention here that the OP No.1 has not produced any report of technician/engineer of its service centre, who checked the mobile in question and cable, to prove that the mobile and the cable was damaged due to mishandling by the complainant. To support his case, the complainant produced copy of Invoice dated 02.12.2017 as Annexure C-1,  delivery challan as Annexure C-2 to C-4, letter written by complainant as Annexure C-5, copy of e-mail as Annexure C-6, copy of representation dated 17.04.2019 as Annexure C-7, warranty/repair policy as Annexure C-8, copy of complaint Annexure C-9 to Annexure C-10. On the other hand, OP No.1 has produced on record extract of minutes of the board meeting of Apple India Pvt. Ltd. As Annexure OP1/1, warranty version of Apple as Annexure OP1/2. As stated above, the OP No.1 did not produce any cogent and convincing evidence in its support and without which, the contention of the OP No.1, is not believable. It may be stated here that none has contested the complaint on behalf of OP No.2 & 3, as they were proceeded against ex-parte, therefore, the contents enumerated in the complaint remained un-rebutted and unchallenged against the OP No.2 & 3 and thus, we have no other option, except to believe the version as well as documents submitted by the complainant, which is duly supported by his affidavit and other supporting documents. Hence, the OP No.2 & 3 are deficient in providing the services to the complainant. From the above mentioned facts and circumstances, it is clearly established that the mobile in question became defective within warranty period and the OPs have failed to redress the grievance of the complainant, as such, they are deficient in providing the services to the complainant.  

8.                In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hereby allow the present complaint against the OPs. They are directed to comply with the following directions jointly and severally:-

1. To replace the defective mobile in question with the new one of the same model. If they are not in position to replace the same of the same model, then refund the amount of Rs.44,000/- to the complainant.
2. To pay Rs.3,000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant.
3. To pay Rs.2,000/- as litigation expenses.

 

                   The OPs are further directed to comply with the aforesaid directions jointly and severally within the period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order, failing which, the awarded amount shall carry interest @ 9% per annum for the period of default. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

Announced on :22.11.2019.

 

 

 

          (Vinod Kumar Sharma)            (Ruby Sharma)     (Neena Sandhu)

              Member                                   Member             President