Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 475.
Instituted on : 17.08.2022.
Decided on : 02.03.2023.
Aprajita Hooda age 54 years, wife of Shri Sanjay Hooda, Resident of House no.1201, Sector 3, HUDA, Rohtak.
...................Complainant.
Versus
1. DIGICARE Services APPLE ROHTAK at Shop no. 106, First Floor Sheetal Life Style Mall D-Park, Rohtak-124001, Haryana
2. Apple India Pvt. Ltd No-24, 19th Floor, Concord Tower. U B City. Vittal Malya Road, Bangluru, Karnataka-560001.
......................Opposite Parties
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR.TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR. VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.Divyam Panghal, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.R.K.Jangra, Advocate for opposite party No.2.
Opposite party No.1 already given up.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case, as per the complainant are that he purchased an mobile APPLE IPhone 12 64 GB. Black, vide IMEI No.353361736681155, on 16/10/2021 for a sum of Rs.65,900/- with one-year manufacturer warranty. But after few months of its purchase, the complainant faced some problems in the mobile. The mobile of complainant started heating, hanging & volume issues. The complainant approached the opposite parties in 2nd week of December 2021 with the alleged issues and they told that the same will be auto rectified after few time and will never trouble in future. But again in the month of March 2022, the same problems had reoccurred and the complainant was not able to use the aforesaid phone to its fullest. But even after that complainant was not provided with any kind of service as the told that the same will be auto rectified after few time. The complainant after going through a lot of difficulty for these few months, approached the opposite party no. 1 on 12.7.2022 & then 30.7.2022 to the service center with the same problems but the same was returned by saying that there is no fault in the phone. The complainant keep on approaching to the opposite parties through e-mail dated 3.8.2022, 5.8.2022 & through phone calls and but to no effect. The complainant had requested the respondents to refund the cost of the mobile set but any heed was not paid to his request. The aforesaid act of the opposite parties is illegal and also amounts to deficiency in services on their part. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that respondents may kindly be directed to refund the cost of mobile set Rs.65,900/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of its accrual till its realization and also to pay a compensation of Rs 50000/- on account of causing harassment and cost of litigation to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party No.2 in its reply has submitted that opposite party No.2 through its authorized service centre has provided continuous support to the complainant on multiple occasions and has provided after-sale support services in relation to the product falling within the warranty terms without any charges. The same is evidenced from the service reports dated 12 July 2022 and 30 July 2022 as relied upon by the Complainant. It is further submitted that the complainant directly approached the opposite party No.2 only on three occasions ie., via customer care support on 19th July 2022, 3rd August 2022, and 5th August 2022. On all these occasions, the complainant was provided a response with a view to redress the grievance of the complainant. It is further submitted that no issues/ complaints were raised by the complainant prior to July 2022. It is further submitted that complainant herself stated that the subject phone continued to work properly for few months after purchase which is itself a proof that the said phone did not suffer from any manufacturing defects. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
3. However, opposite party No.1 made a statement on dated 31.10.2022 that reply already filed on behalf of opposite party No.2 be also read on its behalf. Thereafter on 01.02.2023, opposite party no.1 was given up by the complainant being unnecessary party.
4. Ld. Counsel for the complainant made a statement on dated 16.11.2022 that complaint filed on behalf of the complainant be read as affidavit, tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, and document Ex.C1 to Ex. C7 and has closed his evidence on dated 16.11.2022. Ld. counsel for the opposite party No.2 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A and thereafter failed to concluded its evidence. As such evidence of opposite party no.2 was closed by the court order dated 13.02.2023.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
6. In the present case it is not disputed that complainant purchased an APPLE IPhone on 16/10/2021 for a sum of Rs.65,900/- as is proved from the bill Ex.C2. As per job sheet Ex.C3 dated 12.07.2022 and Ex.C4 dated 30.07.2022, there was ‘hanging issue & volume issue’ in the alleged mobile. But the opposite party only sent follow-up messages Ex.C5 to Ex.C6 and asked the complainant to download software updates. But the defect was not removed by the opposite parties. As per job sheet Ex.C3 dated 12.07.2022 & Ex.C4 dated 30.07.2022 respectively, the device was checked by the company externally and not internally. Opposite party No.1 updated the software and returned the unit to customer. But despite repeated requests made by the complainant, his mobile has not been repaired by the opposite parties within warranty period. On the other hand, opposite parties failed to prove the fact that the complainant had verified and acknowledged that the said mobile was working fine, on the delivery report while receiving the mobile from the opposite party No.1 as no such document has been placed on record by the opposite parties nor such endorsement has been made by the complainant on the job sheets placed on record by the complainant Ex.C3 to Ex.C4 and the complainant has merely signed the same. It is also observed that the Apple is a renowned company of such worldwide stature and the consumer purchases its costly products after impressing by its name and fame and for long time utilization of the same under the impression that the such costly products/mobiles/laptop etc. would be free from every defect and will give longtime results. But when such like companies do not redress the grievances/do not remove the defects of their product, the customers lose their faith in the company. Hence the act of opposite parties of not removing the defects of the mobile in question within warranty period amounts to deficiency in service and opposite party no.2 being the manufacturer is liable to refund the price of mobile set to the complainant.
7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party No.2 to refund the amount of Rs.65900/-(Rupees sixty five thousand and nine hundred only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e.17.08.2022 till its realization and shall also pay Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision. However complainant is directed to hand over the mobile in question to the opposite parties at the time of making payment by the opposite party No.2.
8. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
02.03.2023.
.....................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Tripti Pannu, Member.
……………………………
Vijender Singh, Member
