Sh.Anoop Sharma, Presiding Member

1.       The complainant  has brought the instant complaint under section 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that  the complainant bought a Iphone 6 Plus 16 GB Space Gr vide invoice No.00000P0003000018466  on 6.11.2015 for Rs.58,500/- from Opposite Party No.1 and at the time of selling said product, Opposite Party No.1 persuaded the complainant to obtain insurance  policy for said product for its loss, damage and theft etc. which is covered by Opposite Parties No.4 and 5 with alliance of National Insurance Company Limited and Opposite Party No.1 also assured that in case of any loss, damage  and theft etc. the Opposite Parties No.4 and 5 will repair the defects/ damage free of cost or indemnify the complainant fully up to his satisfaction, therefore acting and believing the persuasions of Opposite Party No.1, the complainant purchased said insurance policy and paid premium of Rs.3999/- under plan No.1000389352 and said policy is commenced  on 6.11.2015 upto 4.11.2016, as such said mobile is covered under warranty from Opposite Parties No.1 and 2  and covered under insurance with Opposite Parties No.4 and 5 and Opposite Party No.3 is service centre of Opposite Parties  and Opposite Party No.6 is coordinator between Opposite Parties who receive and submit the Iphone from service centre and other Opposite Parties. On 8.7.2016 Mobile Set in question was submitted with Opposite Party No.1 for repairs due to breakage in screen and Opposite Party No.1 and they submitted the said Iphone to service centre vide request No.1465814 on 9.7.2016 and thereafter the complainant was asked to deactivate his Apple ID which was not asked that time of receiving  the Iphone. Thereafter, the complainant visited the Opposite Parties but the Opposite Parties did not conduct any repairs and did not change its damaged screen  and illegally repudiated the claim of the complainant and the complainant was forced to pay Rs.30000/- for the repair charges and retained the said Iphone into their custody illegally, which tantamount to gross negligence and deficiency in service  on the part of the Opposite Parties. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.

a)       Opposite Parties may be directed to refund Rs.58,500/- without any further delay or in alternative to exchange the said Mobile Set with new one or to conduct necessary repairs free of cost.

b)      Opposite Parties be directed to pay Rs.1 lac as compensation for mental harassment and humiliation suffered by the complainant.

c)       Costs of the complaint to the tune of Rs.22000/- alongwith any other relief to which this Forum is found entitled to under law and in equity may also be awarded in favour  of the complainant and against the Opposite Parties.  

Hence, this complaint.

2.       Upon notice, Opposite Party No.1 appeared and contested the complaint by filing  written statement taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the answering Opposite Party is one of the authorised retailers for the product supplied and marketed by Apple (India) Private Limited which is the second party. As such the answering Opposite Party  is neither the manufacturer of the Mobile Set or its accessories nor  does any insurance services for the Apple products in  question. It is well implied between the complainant and  the answering Opposite Party that the product warranty terms and conditions are as per manufacturer’s warranty provided alongwith the product or as mentioned on the manufacturer’s website. This understanding is well captured in the invoice and on accepting the same, the complainant received the subject product, hence the complainant at this juncture can not breach the said understanding. The answering Opposite Party is wrongly impleaded in this complaint as such the answering Opposite Party has no role with the insurance clause. On merits, the Opposite Party No.1 took the same and similar pleas as taken up by them in the preliminary objections.          Remaining facts mentioned in the complaint are also denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with cost was made.

3.       Opposite Party No.2 appeared and contested the complaint by filing  written statement taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that Opposite Party No.2 is the authorised service provider of Opposite Party No.3. The complainant made complaint regarding alleged issue of half of the display not working and touch issues. Opposite Party No.2 informed the complainant that it would have to inspect the Iphone for the alleged issues and then inform him and according, it took the said Iphone and issued service report dated 13.6.2016 to the complainant. On inspection, it found that there were dents in the said Iphone and thus it amounted to damage and hence was out of warranty. Further, he was informed that the Iphone could not be serviced/ repaired and it could only be replaced by paying the replacement cost, but the complainant refused and insisted on replacement free of cost. On merits, the Opposite Party No.2 took almost same and similar pleas as taken up by them in the preliminary objections.  Remaining facts mentioned in the complaint are also denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with cost was made.

4.       But however, none appeared on behalf of Opposite Parties No.3 and 4 and were proceeded against exparte. Opposite Parties No.5 and 6 were given up by the complainant. 

5.       In his bid  to prove the case, complainant tendered into evidence  affidavit Ex.C-1 in support of the allegations made in the complaint and also produced copies of documents Ex.C2   to Ex.C4  and closed his evidence.

6.       On the other hand, to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the Opposite Party No.1 tendered into evidence the affidavit of Sh.Amit Malhotra Ex.OP1/1 and Opposite Party No.2 tendered into evidence the affidavit of Sh.Priyesh Poovanna, Country Legal Counsel Ex.OP2/1 alongwith  copies of documents Ex. Op2/2 to Ex.OP3 and thereafter, the Opposite Parties No.1 and closed their evidence.

7.       We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the evidence on record.

8.       The complainant has submitted his affidavit Ex.C1 in which he has reiterated the facts as detailed in the complaint that he bought a Iphone 6 Plus 16 GB Space Gr vide invoice No.00000P0003000018466  on 6.11.2015 for Rs.58,500/- from Opposite Party No.1 and at the time of selling said product, Opposite Party No.1 persuaded the complainant to obtain insurance  policy for said product for its loss, damage and theft etc. which is covered by Opposite Parties No.4 and 5 with alliance of National Insurance Company Limited and Opposite Party No.1 also assured that in case of any loss, damage  and theft etc. the Opposite Parties No.4 and 5 will repair the defects/ damage free of cost or indemnify the complainant fully up to his satisfaction, therefore acting and believing the persuasions of Opposite Party No.1, the complainant purchased said insurance policy and paid premium of Rs.3999/- under plan No.1000389352 and said policy is commenced  on 6.11.2015 upto 4.11.2016, as such said mobile is covered under warranty from Opposite Parties No.1 and 2  and covered under insurance with Opposite Parties No.4 and 5 and Opposite Party No.3 is service centre of Opposite Parties  and Opposite Party No.6 is coordinator between Opposite Parties who receive and submit the Iphone from service centre and other Opposite Parties. On 8.7.2016 Mobile Set in question was submitted with Opposite Party No.1 for repairs due to breakage in screen and Opposite Party No.1 and they submitted the said Iphone to service centre vide request No.1465814 on 9.7.2016 and thereafter the complainant was asked to deactivate his Apple ID which was not asked that time of receiving  the Iphone. Thereafter, the complainant visited the Opposite Parties but the Opposite Parties did not conduct any repairs and did not change its damaged screen  and illegally repudiated the claim of the complainant and the complainant was forced to pay Rs.30000/- for the repair charges and retained the said Iphone into their custody illegally, which tantamount to gross negligence and deficiency in service  on the part of the Opposite Parties.

9.       On the other hand, Opposite Party No.1 has repelled the aforesaid contention of the ld.counsel for the complainant on the ground that Opposite Party No.1 is one of the authorised retailers for the product supplied and marketed by Apple (India) Private Limited which is the second party. As such the Opposite Party No.1  is neither the manufacturer of the Mobile Set or its accessories nor  does any insurance services for the Apple products in  question. It is well implied between the complainant and  Opposite Party No.1 that the product warranty terms and conditions are as per manufacturer’s warranty provided alongwith the product or as mentioned on the manufacturer’s website. This understanding is well captured in the invoice and on accepting the same, the complainant received the subject product, hence the complainant at this juncture can not breach the said understanding. Opposite Party No.1 is wrongly impleaded in this complaint as such the answering Opposite Party has no role with the insurance clause. On the other hand, ld.counsel for Opposite Party No.2 also repelled the contention of the ld.counsel for the complainant on the ground that  the Opposite Party No.2 is the authorised service provider of Opposite Party No.3. The complainant made complaint regarding alleged issue of half of the display not working and touch issues. Opposite Party No.2 informed the complainant that it would have to inspect the Iphone for the alleged issues and then inform him and according, it took the said Iphone and issued service report dated 13.6.2016 to the complainant. On inspection, it found that there were dents in the said Iphone and thus it amounted to damage and hence was out of warranty. Further, he was informed that the Iphone could not be serviced/ repaired and it could only be replaced by paying the replacement cost, but the complainant refused and insisted on replacement free of cost.

10.     It is not the denial of the parties that the complainant bought a Iphone 6 Plus 16 GB Space Gr vide invoice No.00000P0003000018466  on 6.11.2015 for Rs.58,500/- from Opposite Party No.1, but however, the case of the complainant is that  the time of selling said product, Opposite Party No.1 persuaded the complainant to obtain insurance  policy for said product for its loss, damage and theft etc. which is covered by Opposite Parties No.4 and 5 with alliance of National Insurance Company Limited and Opposite Party No.1 also assured that in case of any loss, damage  and theft etc. the Opposite Parties No.4 and 5 will repair the defects/ damage free of cost or indemnify the complainant fully up to his satisfaction, therefore acting and believing the persuasions of Opposite Party No.1, the complainant purchased said insurance policy and paid premium of Rs.3999/- under plan No.1000389352 and said policy is commenced  on 6.11.2015 upto 4.11.2016, as such said mobile is covered under warranty from Opposite Parties No.1 and 2  and covered under insurance with Opposite Parties No.4 and 5 and Opposite Party No.3 is service centre of Opposite Parties  and Opposite Party No.6 is coordinator between Opposite Parties who receive and submit the Iphone from service centre and other Opposite Parties. It is submitted that on 8.7.2016 Mobile Set in question was submitted with Opposite Party No.1 for repairs due to breakage in screen and Opposite Party No.1 and they submitted the said Iphone to service centre vide request No.1465814 on 9.7.2016 and thereafter the complainant was asked to deactivate his Apple ID which was not asked that time of receiving  the Iphone. Thereafter, the complainant visited the Opposite Parties but the Opposite Parties did not conduct any repairs and did not change its damaged screen  and illegally repudiated the claim of the complainant and the complainant was forced to pay Rs.30000/- for the repair charges and retained the said Iphone into their custody illegally, which tantamount to gross negligence and deficiency in service  on the part of the Opposite Parties. Ex.C4 is the policy issued by  Opposite Party No.4 regarding the insurance of the product in question, the evidence produced on record  by the complainant remained unrebutted and unchallenged  as none appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.4 to contest the case of the complainant nor any person from Opposite Party No.4 dared to file an affidavit to rebut the case of the complainant.  Ex.C2 is the copy of bill amounting to Rs.58,500/-,  Ex.C3 is the copy of  customer visit service report, Ex.C4 is the insurance claim form.  It is not denied that the Iphone became defective within the insurance period and it was the case of the complainant that he  informed the Opposite Parties vide job service report Ex.C4 that the Iphone became defective, but  Opposite Party No.4 was so negligent and acted so arbitrarily that instead of submitting any record or evidence oral or documentary, preferred to become exparte. All this fully proves that there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party No.4 who did not dare to come present to defend its case despite due service of summons.

11.     Resultantly, we allow the complaint of the complainant against  Opposite Party No.4 and Opposite Party No.4 is directed to refund the amount of Rs.58,500/- to the complainant on account of price of the Iphone in question. The complaint against Opposite Parties No.1,  2 and 3 stands dismissed. The compliance of this order be made by Opposite Party No.4 within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the awarded amount shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of order till its realization. Opposite Party No.4 is also directed to pay Rs.2000/- to the complainant on the account of litigation expenses. Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.

Announced in Open Forum