DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.
Case No.367/2014
Mrs. Ravneet Singh
W/o Sukhmandir Singh
R/o C-25, 4th Floor,
Raja Dhir Sen Marg,
East of Kailash,
New Delhi-110065 ….Complainant
Versus
1. Croma Care Centre
Lamba House, Plot E-11A,
East of Kailash,
New Delhi-110065
2. Apple- Manufacturer of iPhone
Apple India Pvt. Ltd.
UB City, Vittal Mallya Road,
Bangalore-560001
3. i World Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd.
CG-08, Ansal Plaza, Khel Gaon Marg,
New Delhi-110049 ……Opposite Parties
Date of Institution : 16.09.14 Date of Order : 03 .10.16
Coram:
Sh. N.K. Goel, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
O R D E R
Briefly stated, the case of the Complainant is that on 31.03.14 the Complainant purchased 4S Black iphone from OP No.1 manufactured by OP No.3 as per the particulars given below:-
i. SKU : MF 265 HN/NA
ii. Product : Mobile phone 4S Black 8GB GSM
iii. Product Id : 180443
iv. Serial No. : DX3M4GUTFML6
v. IMEI/MEID : 013536002073755.
The cash payment of Rs.10,000/- was made on 31.03.14, Rs.5,000/- was adjusted against mobile exchange offer and balance of Rs.16,500/- was paid through Citibank Card on EMI basis. The product delivery was taken on 02.04.14 as OP No.1 was not having stock of black colour mobile on 31.03.14. The phone was defective right from its purchase. All incoming calls were getting automatically switched off and listed as ‘missed calls’ while all outgoing calls were immediately switched off after dialing and placed under ‘call failed’. The defect was reported to OP No.1 on 03.04.14 within 24 hours of taking delivery of the phone. OP No.1 advised her to change the SIM card from 32K to 64K which was done on 3rd April but ever after the change of SIM the defects continued. The phone was returned to OP No.1 on 05.04.14 with the request to replace the same. OP No.1 advised her that they will send the phone to OP No.3 (Service Centre) who will check and arrange for replacement. As she returned the phone to the OP No.1 she took back her old phone given in exchange but in the process all her saved contracts were lost. On 19.04.14 she received a SMS from OP No.1 that OP No.2 will replace her phone and she should contact the OP No.3. Her husband visited the OP No.3 on 19.04.14 at about 12:35 hrs. He met Mr. Alok and he replaced the phone. He had enquired from Mr. Alok whether it is a new phone in factory seal packing the latter replied that it is in poly Pack and not in sealed box. Mr. Alok stated that he can show the computer record to prove that the handset being offered was new. Her husband informed Mr. Alok that this was not acceptable to him. The iphone should open infront of him and then only will be accepted or they should arrange to refund the money. Mr. Alok advised her husband to contract OP No.1. She contracted the OP No.1 and OP No.3 through telephone calls and emails; neither the phone was replaced nor money has been refunded. Hence, pleading in deficiency in service on the part of OPs the complaint has been filed for issuing following directions to the OPs:-
- Payments made to Croma = Rs.10,000/- down payment + Rs.2752/- Citibank EMI of Rs.12,752/-.
- Harassment caused by Croma Care Centre and Apple India on account of supply of defective phone-
- loss of phone contracts and effort to re-enter them into my mobile phone, equivalent to 5 days effort at Rs.1000/- per day = Rs.5000/-.
- Visits and Correspondence with Croma Care and Apple India, equivalent to 5 days effort to my husband, at Rs.10000/- per day = Rs.50,000/-
- Filing of Charges in Consumer Court = Rs.15000.
- Litigation charges – attending court hearing etc. at Rs.5000/- per hearing.
Total = Rs.70,000/- plus attending court hearings at Rs.5,000/- per hearing and any other miscellaneous expenses.
OP No.1 in the written statement has stated that OP No.1 is a retailer and dealer of various electronic products and is not the manufacturer of the goods. The Complainant had purchased Apple iphone manufactured by OP No.2. The Complainant herself lodged a complaint with the service station of OP No.2. The OP No.2 & 3 has confirmed that the product has been replaced with the new one. It clearly shows that the OP No.1 had performed its duty. However, it is between the Complainant and OP No.2 to decide how to resolve the problem. As per the worldwide policy of the OP No.2 they do not give sealed packed product as a replacement but the Complainant insisted on the sealed packed product. OP No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
Thereafter, all the OPs have been proceeded exparte vide order dated 30.03.15.
Complainant has filed rejoinder to the written statement of OP.
Complainant has filed her own affidavit in evidence.
Complainant has placed on record cash memo dated 31.03.14 which shows that she had purchased 4S Black iphone from OP No.1 manufactured by OP No.2 (for the purpose of identification we mark the document as annexure-A). Annexure-B relates to the OP No.3 (service report of the iphone). The Complainant has also placed on record various emails exchanged between the parties.
There is no evidence on the record to prove that the Complainant had purchased a iphone from OP No.1 manufactured by OP No.2. Since the date of its purchase, the iphone was not working property. The OP No.1 sent an SMS on 19.04.14 to the Complainant that they she should contact OP No.3 for replacement of her phone. Her husband met the official of OP No.3. They were ready to replace the phone but it was not in a sealed packet. The OP No.3 showed the record to prove that the handset being offered was new one but her husband refused to accept the replacement as it was not in factory sealed box and requested to arrange to refund the money.
It transpires from the documents filed by the parties that OP No.2 & 3 were ready to replace the phone. As per the written statement of OP No.1 as per the worldwide policy of OP No.2 they do not give sealed packed product as replacement. The Complainant in her prayer requested for refund of money of Rs.10,000/- (down payment) and Rs.2752/-, totaling to Rs.12752/-. There is deficiency in service on the part of OP No.2 on whose behalf OP No.3 had refused to give factory sealed new set to the Complainant. No copy of any such worldwide policy of OP No.2 has been filed on the record. Therefore, we allow the complaint and direct the OP No.2 to pay Rs.12752/- to the Complainant alongwith Rs.8,000/- towards compensation for harassment and mental agony undergone by the Complainant including cost of litigation.
The order shall be complied within 30 days of receipt of copy of this order failing which OP No.2 shall become liable to pay interest @ Rs. 9% per annum on the amount of Rs.12752/- from the date of filing of the complaint till its realization.
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 03.10.2016.
