CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION – X
GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI
UdyogSadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel)
New Delhi – 110016
Case No.207/2020
DHRUV GOYAL
S/o. SUSHEEL KUMAR,
R/o. 38, SATYA NIKETAN, MOTI BAGH,
NEW DELHI-110021 .…..COMPLAINANT
Vs.
- F1-INFO SOLUTION & SERVICES PVT. LTD.
201 ASHOK BHAWAN,
93 NEHRU PLACE,
NEW DELHI-110019, INDIA.
- APPLE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED
UB CITY NO. 24, VITTAL MALLYA ROAD,
BANGALORE-560001, INDIA
- iNVENTS APPLE PREMIUM RESELLER,
107, FIRST FLOOR MOMENTS MALL,
KIRTI NAGAR, NEW DELHI. .…..RESPONDENTS
Date of Institution-28.05.2012
Date of Order-28.02.2023
O R D E R
RITU GARODIA-MEMBER
The complaint pertains to deficiency in service on the part of OP in not repairing of a mobile set during extended warranty period.
The complainant purchased an I phone model XS Max Bearing Serial NO. G6WXHM4LKPJ5, the device was under warranty till 21.10.2020. The complainant had purchased the extended warranty from OP3.
The display of the mobile went dim and green during the first lockdown. The complainant visited OP1 for repairs on 12.6.2020. At that time, OP1 representative did not find any tampering or dents on the phone. The complainant alleges that OP1 mentioned this fact on job card only after great persuasion. The device was taken for repairs. On 18.6.2020, the complainant received a call from OP1/ service centre stating that the display installed in the smart phone was by a third party and as such not covered under warranty.
The complainant sent various e-mails to OP2 requesting about the formal status of the mobile in question. As there was no revert to this query he sent a legal notice dated 10.7.2020.
On 23.7.2020, OP2 informed the complainant that the decision remained unchanged. On 1.10.2020 the complainant took back his device from the service Centre. At that time he had to submit his job card to receive the service delivery challan. The complainant also states that device was checked at the time of extended warranty. There was no tampering.
The complainant prays for repair/ replacement of the device, payment of a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- and Rs. 20,000/- towards mental agony and cost of petition respectively. The complainant has filed copy of extended warranty receipt, e-mails, job card, service delivery challan and legal notice.
OP1 was proceeded Ex-parte vide order dated 30.11.2021.
OP2, the manufacturer, in its reply stated that it is a company of global repute and internationally renowned leader in innovation in the sphere of telecommunication devices, computing and communications. OP2 further submits that when a consumer causes damage to the products by external factors and disregard the warranty policies, he cannot claim relief. OP2 has relied on applicable warranty provisions.
It is stated by OP2 that complainant has purchased I phone XS Max. The complainant approached OP2 through OP1 who is an authorized service provider with complaint of problems in display. OP1 inspected the device and identified the general external conditions. OP1 informed the complainant that the device will be sent to repair centre of OP2 in Bangalore. A repair acceptance form was given to complainant. The repair centre upon inspection found that device was having third party display and was therefore, out of warranty. OP1 offered out of warranty paid repair to which the complainant denied. OP1 specifies that complainant had violated the terms and conditions as per warranty. OP1 has filed warranty conditions along with its reply.
Complainant has filed its replication in consonance with the facts related in the complaint. Complainant has denied any modification in the mobile phone by any unauthorized person. No such damage was identified by OP1 when the said mobile was submitted for repairs. Complainant alleges that he was not informed that the device will be sent to repair centre at Bangalore.
Complainant has filed evidence by way of an affidavit and exhibited the following documents:-
- Copy of extended warranty receipt is exhibited as EX/PW1
- Copy of Job card is exhibited as EX/PW2
- Copy of legal notice and emails are exhibited as EX/PW3 and EX/PW4 respectively.
- Copy of service delivery Challan is exhibited as Ex/PW5.
OP2 has filed evidence by way of an affidavit of Shri Sandeep Karmakar, Contracts Manager, Apple India Pvt. Ltd., and exhibited the following documents:-
- Copy of Board Resolution is exhibited as Annexure R-1.
- Copy of Warranty terms is exhibited as Annexure R-2.
Complainant in his written arguments has stated that his mobile set was inspected twice: firstly, at the time of purchase of extended warranty and secondly at the time of submission of device to OP1. There were no complaints of any tampering. It is further stated that OP1 has discontinued the I phone model in question. The complainant prays for replacing the device with an upgraded model, payment of a sum of Rs. 1,20,000/- towards mental agony and litigation cost respectively.
OP2 in its written argument has stated that it offered out of warranty paid repair which was declined by the complainant. OP2 has relied on judgments wherein it was held that the consumer who failed to prove manufacturing defect will not be liable to claim compensation for the same and adherence to warranty manual is a pre-requisite in case of manufacturing defect.
The Commission has considered the arguments and the material on record. Admittedly the complainant purchased an I Phone XS Max bearing serial No. G6WXHM4LKPJ5. It is not denied that the complainant has purchased an extended warranty namely Apple Care Protection Plan for I Phone vide invoice dated 8.10.2019.
Job sheet dated 12.6.2020 shows:-
- Warranty status: under warranty.
- Physical condition scratches, dent.
- Jobsheetremarks : Mobile working. Dim and green display. (Policy update to customer).
Email dated 22.7.2020 from OP to complainant states that OP is reviewing its previous service. Email dated 23.7.2020 from OP to complainant states that Apple’s response remains unchanged.
Service delivery challan dated 1.10.2020 shows:
- Warranty status: Apple care protection plan.
- Problem reported:- Mobile working fine, Dim and green display (policy update to customer)
Take action:- Customer reported Dim and green display, checked and found same, view sent the device to apple RC, touch was working fine at the time of submission the device, but apple declined the device due to 3RD party display found in unit, touch not working after receiving the device from apple hence same return to customer.
It is clear from the first job sheet dated 12.6.2020 that the device was working and had a problem in display screen while it was under warranty. The subsequent service deliver challan dated 1.10.2020 reveals that though the product was under Apple Care Protection Plan and was working fine when given for repair, the device was not working when it was given back to the customer. OP1 and OP2 did not repair the phone stating third party display found in the mobile and returned the phone in a non-working condition.
Admittedly, the mobile was under warranty. OP1 and OP2 was under an obligation to provide service free of cost. The complainant had no reason to get it repaired from any other source on payment of charge. OP2 has made a bald assertion that there was third party tampering but has not explained as to how it came to this conclusion. No explanation from OP’s service technician in Bangalore is forthcoming, nor have any check list / processes / methods through which the device was inspected has been placed on record which would lead to an inference that the device was tampered. Not even the affidavit of any competent technician stating that there was a third party intervention has been placed on record. No technical repair or photographic proof of tampering is disclosed. It is difficult to comprehend as to why a person will take his device/ product to a third party repair person when he has spent an extra amount from his own pocket for extended warranty namely Apple Care Protection Plan.
Moreover, the phone was in working condition at the time of submission of device to authorized service centre for repair. It was expected to be in working condition when it was handed back to the complainant. Admittedly, the mobile set was not in working condition. There is no clarification imminent from OP providing reasons for the device being completely non-operational when it was returned. This conduct of OP leads us to believe that mobile set was opened at the repair Centre and technicians were unable to put it back together and make it functional.
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Uttarakhand Dehradun in Apple India Pvt. Ltd. vs Prashant Khaduri vide FA No. 168 of 2016 decided on 29 July, 2022 has observed that “As per the own stand of the appellant, the complainant again visited respondent No. 2 with the complaint that the mobile handset was getting unclean shutdown. It would not be out of place to mention here that inspite of the mobile handset being under the warranty period, sum of Rs. 25,000/- was demanded from the complainant, whereas the defect occurring in the mobile handset, should have been set right free of cost, in order to avoid any unnecessary harassment and agony of the complainant, but the same was not done. The screen shot dated 31.01.2015 (Paper No. 24 of the District Commission's record) shows that the symptom reported was "Mic is not working sometimes. Screen freeze sometimes intermittent issue found". Intermittent means stopping for a short time and then starting again several times. In such a situation, it is impossible for one to use the mobile handset, as the same gets stopped several times and then gets started. The said defect can very well be said to be inherent manufacturing defect in the unit (mobile handset). The appellant has not been able to prove by any cogent and reliable evidence that the defect occurring in the mobile handset, was not covered under the warranty clause of the company.”
OP1 and OP2 has adopted unfair trade practice and rendered deficient services in not repairing of mobile set during warranty. Hence, we find OP1 and OP2 guilty of deficiency in service, direct it to refund the price of phone paid by the complainant along with 9% interest from the date the mobile set was given for repairs till its realization and pay Rs. 25,000/- as compensation towards mental agony, physical inconveniences and Rs. 10,000/- towards litigation expenses.
OP1 and OP2 both are jointly and severely reliable to make the payment of the above amount to the complainant within a period of 30 days from the date of uploading of order..
The order to be complied within 30 days from the date of uploading of order failing which it will carry an interest of @12% p.a. from the date of order to till payment is made by OP.
(Dr. RAJENDER DHAR) (RITU GARODIA) (RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
