BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 235 of 2018
Date of Institution : 24.9.2018
Date of Decision : 19.4.2019
Jaskaran Singh son of Sh. Inderpal Singh resident of 968, Chopra Street, Near Scout Chowk, Sirsa, District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
- Deol Mobiles, Shiv Chowk, Circular Road Sirsa, through its Prop. Karamjit Deol.
- Apple India Private Limited, 19th Floor Concorde Tower C, UB City No.24, Vittal Mallya Road, Banglore-560001, through its Managing Director/Prop/Auth. Person.
- Iqor Global Service India Pvt. Ltd. Shop No.5 Ground Floor, Suncity Mall, Delhi Road, Hisar-125005, through its Manager/Incharge/Auth. Person.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI R.L. AHUJA…… PRESIDENT
SHRI ISSAM SINGH SAGWAL……MEMBER.
MRS. SUKHDEEP KAUR…….MEMBER.
Present: Sh. I.P.S Fazil, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. A.S. Kalra, Advocate for the op no.2.
Opposite parties no.1& 3 exparte.
ORDER
In brief, the case of complainant is that the complainant was in need of a mobile, hence he visited the shop of op no.1 and asked to show a mobile of reputed company. Then op no.1 showed the mobile of I Phone7, of 32 GB and asked the complainant that this mobile is a latest mobile of reputed company of Apple and if complainant will purchase the same, then there will be any defect or problem in this mobile. If there will be any problem, then op no.1 will replace the same with the new one or to return its sale price. Then on every type of assurance, complainant purchased the said mobile of I Phone 7 of 32 GB vide EMEI 353833080701433, Sr.No. DNPTVQE0HG7F for the amount of Rs.46000/- on 22.9.2017. Op no.1 had also given every type of guaranty/warranty of the said mobile for one year. On the next day of purchase of the mobile, the said mobile started to create problems i.e. Screen display and sound problem and having manufacturing defect. The complainant immediately approached op no.1 and told about this problem, then op no.1 asked that there is a manufacturing problem and op no.1 asked to move complaint with the company i.e. op no.2 by admitting the manufacturing defect in the said mobile. Then complainant lodged complaint vide case ID No. 100300775402 and 100300716888 on 23.9.2017. The op no.2 asked to approach their dealer and care Centre at Hisar. The complainant approached to the op no.1 and requested to replace the above said mobile because there is a manufacturing defect and OP No.1 had also assured to replace the same with new one, if there would be any defect in the mobile but the op no.1 did not hear the complainant and started to put matter with one pretext or the other for 3-4 months and thereafter, he asked to approach the care Centre/op no.3. On 14.8.2018, the complainant visited to op no.3 at Hisar and told about the manufacturing defect in the said mobile. After seeing the mobile, the op no.3 admitted its manufacturing defect i.e. display has got dead pixels/blank lines. They kept the said mobile and asked that they will send the same in the company for its replacement. On 25.8.2018 when complainant visited to op no.3 for replacement of new mobile in place of his defective piece of mobile but the op no.3 asked that the said mobile has been repaired and refused to replace the samee with new one. After repair of the same, the said problem was still exists, rather it creates new problems i.e. sensor problem, heating problem, etc. The complainant again immediately visited to op no.1 but he did not hear the request of complainant. The complainant moved a E-mail complaint on 4.9.2018 to op no.3 and thereafter, complainant personally visited to op no.3 and told about the above said problems in the mobile but they have also refused to replace the same with new one and started to threaten the complainant that if complainant again visited their care centre then they will taught him a lesson. In this way the ops have cheated and looted complainant in day broad light as there was a manufacturing defect in the said mobile. Hence, this complaint.
2. Opposite party no.1&3 did not appear despite notice sent through publication and were proceeded against exparte.
On notice, op no.2 appeared and filed written statement in which he has taken preliminary objections and submitted that the contentions and averments made by the complainant in the instant complaint are patently false, vexatious, devoid of any merits and made with the malafide intention of harassing the answering op. It is further submitted that the complaint has concealed the true and material facts and has not approached this Forum with clean hands. It is further submitted that the answering op takes all necessary precautions and gives highly value to its customers and takes necessary action to ensure that the customer is satisfied and received high-quality services and products. It is further submitted that iPhones sold in India by answering op authorized dealers/resellers are known for their cutting-edge technology and utmost customer satisfaction. The said iPhones undergo strict quality tests to ensure that the said products maintain high standards to ensure that they do not fail to meet industry standards. It is further submitted that it is a common market principle and also an established position of law that consumers who willfully destroy, damage or negligently handle the product are not entitle to claim any relief under the Act. To be specific, when consumers cause damage to products by external factors which are not associated with the manufacturing/inherent condition of the product and such acts which disregard the warranty policies of manufacturers cannot claim relief under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is stated that the Provisions and terms of the Apple Warranty specifically exclude damaged products which is the case in the present matter. A perusal of the extract of the warranty card clearly shows that the alleged damage caused to the iPhone on account of the negligent and misuse by the complainant. The iPhone of the complainant rendered out of warranty and the said alleged damage is not attributable to answering op. The op no.3 diagnosed the device and found the said issues in it, since the device was under warranty, the said device was repaired and the same was returned back to the complainant in the working condition. It is pertinent to mention here that whenever the complainant visited the authorized service provider of the answering op for any issue in the device, he will provide the solution for the same. Since the device was under warranty, the op no.2 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 on the part of the answering OP. It is pertinent to mention that, it is the result of complainant’s negligent handling of the device and not due to the manufacturing defect or due to deficiency in service. Remaining all the averments made by the complainant are denied by the ops and the complainant is not entitled to get any relief from this Forum against the answering ops and the complaint of the complainant may kindly be dismissed with heavy costs, in the interest of justice.
3. The parties have led evidence in the form of affidavits and documents. The complainant has tendered Ex.CW1/A- his own supporting affidavit; Ex.C1 bill, Ex.C2 job sheet, emails Ex. C3 to Ex.C9, whereas opposite party also tendered affidavit Ex.R1 in which he reiterated in the written reply, authorization letter Ex.R2, detail of warranty limitation subject to consumer law Ex.R3.
4. We have heard Ld. counsel for the complainant learned counsel for Op No.2 and perused the record carefully.
5. The Ld. counsel for the complainant in order to prove his case has submitted affidavit of the complainant Ex.CW1/A in which he has deposed and reiterated averments in the complaint. Further, he produced the original bill of sale of mobile Ex.C1 and Ex.C2 job sheet, emails Ex. C3 to Ex.C9.
6. On the other hand, the counsel for the opposite party no.2 also tendered affidavit Ex.R1 in which he reiterated in the written reply and produced authorization letter Ex.R2, detail of warranty limitation subject to consumer law Ex.R3.
7. Admittedly, the complainant purchased the said mobile of I Phone 7 of 32 GB vide EMEI 353833080701433, Sr.No. DNPTVQE0HG7F for the amount of Rs.46000/- on 22.9.2017. Op no.1 had also given every type of guaranty/warranty of the said mobile for one year. On the next day of purchase of the mobile, the said mobile started to create problems i.e. Screen display and sound problem and having manufacturing defect. The complaint was lodged with the op no.2 who assured the complainant to get the mobile defect free, but however, he tried to kill the time on one or the other pretext. It is further admitted fact that the mobile was within the warranty period. On 14.08.2018 the mobile was deposited with OP No.1 for replacement of the same but however, the mobile was repaired by the op and thereafter it was handed over to the complainant on 25.8.2018.
8. As per the allegation of the complainant the mobile was not working properly even after its repairs. There was a heating problem, finger prints problem and also minor pixels issues in the mobile set and again the complaint was lodged with the ops and the ops continued to correspond with the complainant but however, the mobile set was not got repaired by the ops on one or the another reason. After feeling disappointed due to non providing of the services by the ops the complainant filed the present complaint. Though, the op No.2 had taken the plea that the complainant approached only for one time with the complaint and the mobile of the complainant was repaired and handed over to the complainant and thereafter, the complainant did not come for any complaint. But however, the op No.2has not placed on record any such document. So, it appears from the evidence of the ops that the ops have not provided the services or repairing mobile of the complainant for which they were legally bound to repair the same within the warranty period which clearly amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the ops.
9. In view of above, we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite parties to carry out necessary repair of the mobile and make the same defect free even by replacing any part of the mobile without any cost within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order after receiving the phone from complainant. However, in case mobile set is not repairable, the ops shall be liable to replace the mobile of the complainant with a new one of same make and model within further period of 15 days. We also direct the ops to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as composite compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open Forum: Member Member President,
Dated: 19.4.2019 District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa
