Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 452.
Instituted on : 14.10.2020.
Decided on : 13.10.2021.
Shubham Chaudhary s/o Rajeev Singh Boys Hostel No.9(Mount Abu), Maharashi Dayanand University, Rohtak.
.......................Complainant.
Vs.
- DIGICARE Services APPLE ROHTAK at Shop No.6, First Floor, Sheetal Life Style Mall D-Park, Rohtak-124001, Haryana(Authorized service center of Apple India).
- Apple India Pvt. Ltd. No.24, 19th Floor, Concord Tower, UB City, Vittal Malya Road, Bangluru, Karnataka-560001(Manufacturer).
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.Divyam Panghal, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Kunal Juneja Advocate for opposite party No.2.
Opposite party No.1 exparte.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that complainant has purchased a mobile phone of Apple 11 64GB vide IMEI No.353990104376889, 353990104370270 on dated 25.10.2019 vide bill no.3000 for a consideration of Rs.64900/-. After the purchase of said mobile, it worked properly only for some days and after 2 months of purchase, the said mobile phone started creating problems i.e.hanging, rebooting on its own and after some time, it stopped responding and due to said defect, the complainant was unable to do any function of the mobile. Complainant contacted the opposite party no.1 for the said defect and requested to get the same repaired. But on 18.02.2020, the service provider of opposite party no.1 returned the same to the complainant just after resetting it. But the problem could not be resolved and after some days the issue began repeating itself and there was no redressal available in those days due to the imposed lockdown in March due to the spread of Coronavirus. The complainant after going through a lot of difficulty for these few months, finally managed to get to the service center again in September on 17.09.2020 but they flatly refused to resolve the said issues. They just returned the mobile phone in same condition without resolving any issue. Complainant also contacted the opposite party No.1 on 18.09.2020. Complainant repeatedly tried to contact opposite party No.2 via toll free number but either the calls were not properly connected or he was told to visit the service center. Complainant requested the opposite parties time and again either to repair the mobile set or to replace the same with new one but to no effect. There is huge deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and as such it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to replace the mobile with new one or to pay the invoice amount of Rs.64900/- alongwith interest compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notices were issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party No.1 did not appear despite service and as such was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 28.12.2020 of this Commission. Opposite party No.2 in its reply has submitted that there is no history of any sort of defect detected by the opposite party No.2 or opposite party No.1 on the complainant’s mobile. The complainant has not produced any sort of evidence to support his averments. The complainant has not produced any evidence to substantiate his claim regarding denial of services by the opposite party No.1. The complainant had purchased the said mobile on 25.10.2019 and the one year warranty expired on 24.10.2020. It is strange to note that complainant has approached the opposite party no.1 only towards the end just before the expiry of his warranty. He has successfully used his device for the entire tenure of the warranty by raising false allegations, he has not suffered from any of the issues as he has been alleging. 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. Ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C6 and closed his evidence on 16.07.2021. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the OP no.2 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R1 & Ex.R2 and closed his evidence on dated 20.09.2021.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. After going through the file and hearing the parties, it is observed that as per bill Ex.C1, the complainant had purchased the mobile in question on 25.10.2019 and as per job sheet Ex.C2 dated 22.02.2020, there was hanging problem in the mobile set in question and the device was restored and updated by the service centre. As per job sheet Ex.C3 dated 17.09.2020, there was problem of Heating and App crash issue and the same unit was returned to the customer after observing that the problem was due to network issue. As per Ex.C4 dated 18.09.2020 there was again App crash issue and heating issue and again the same unit was returned to customer after updating. The complainant has spent a huge amount of Rs.64900/- in purchasing the Apple I-Phone after believing that the Apple India is a reputed company and is known for its cutting-edge technology and utmost customer satisfaction. The purpose of complainant for purchasing the high quality and high price mobile was that he would not suffer any problem in mobile and if any problem occurred, then the company will resolve the problem. But in the present case opposite party company failed to satisfy its customer because the defect in the alleged mobile phone appeared within 4 months of its purchase and the same could neither be repaired nor replaced by the opposite parties despite repeated repairs in warranty period. Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and opposite parties are liable to compensate the complainant. As the mobile in question is used by the complainant uninterruptedly for 4 months, so the complainant is entitled for the refund of price of his mobile after deduction of 10% depreciation on it i.e. Rs.64900/- less Rs.6490/-= Rs.58410/-.
7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party No.2 i.e. manufacturer to refund the amount of Rs.58410/-(Rupees fifty eight thousand four hundred and ten only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 14.10.2020 till its realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.3000/-(Rupees three thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.3000/-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 party No.2 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:
13.10.2021
....................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
…………………………….
Tripti Pannu, Member.
