Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/23/2020

Apple India Pvt. Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Gurdeep Kaur - Opp.Party(s)

Manpreet Sawhney & Rahul Garg Adv.

25 Feb 2022

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH

 

Appeal No.	23 of 2020
Date of Institution	27.01.2020
Date of Decision	25.02.2022

Apple India Private Limited through its Authorized Representative Priyesh Poovanna, aged major, office at 19 Floor, Concorde Tower C, UB City, No.24, Vittal Mallya Road, Bangalore – 560001.

                                                           …..Appellant/Opposite Party No.1

Versus

1. Gurdeep Kaur D/o Sh. Raghvir Singh Resident of House No.3432, Sector 71, Mohali, Punjab.
2.  Anmol Smart Store, SCO 1043, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh.

 

…..Performa Respondent/Opposite Party No.2

BEFORE:  MRS. PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER

                MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER

               

Argued by: Sh. Manpreet Sawhney, Advocate alongwith Sh. Rahul   Garg, Advocate for the appellant.

  Sh. Raman Dhaliwal, Advocate for the Respondent No.1.

                       

PER PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER

              This appeal is directed against an order dated 31.10.2019, rendered by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I (now District Commission-I), U.T., Chandigarh (in the short ‘the District Commission’ only), vide which, it partly allowed the Consumer Complaint against Opposite Party No.1, with the following directions:-

                 “[a] To unblock the Apple I.D of the    Complainant;

 [b]   To pay Rs.2500/- as compensation to the complainant for deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and harassment caused to her.

[c]   To also pay a sum of Rs.2500/- to the complainant as litigation expenses. 

       The complaint against Opposite Party No.2 fails and is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. 

 

13.   The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Party No.1; thereafter, Opposite Party No.1 shall be liable for an interest @12% per annum on the amounts mentioned in sub-para [b] & [c] above from the date of institution of this complaint, till these are paid, apart from compliance of the directions as in sub-para [a].”

2. The facts, in brief, are that the Complainant bought Apple iPhone 6, 32 GB of Space Gray Colour worth Rs.30,700/- from Opposite Party No.2/performa respondent on 01.04.2017 by financing the same from HDFC Bank. It was stated that in the month of January 2018, complainant’s apple iPhone was blocked and the iPhone stopped working and thereafter, the Complainant went to the Apple Store a number of times as the iPhone was still in warranty period, but without any results. It was further stated that the Complainant also went to the Opposite Party No.2/performa respondent, but to no avail. It was further stated that the Complainant went to Apple Customer Care where she was given the reason that her Apple I.D was blocked as she had mailed them to stop her I.D or if she had not done that, then she must have stolen the iPhone. It was further stated that the Complainant even showed the original bill of the iPhone to the Customer Care, but to no success and subsequently, wasting no time, the Complainant sent mails to the Opposite Parties on 12.09.2018 regarding her problem, but the same was not addressed. It was further stated that the aforesaid act of the Opposite Party, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint, was filed.
3. Notice of the complaint was sent to the Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case, but none appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.2 despite service, therefore, it was proceeded ex-parte.
4. The Opposite Party No.1 filed reply and stated that the locking iPhone was on account of the negligent misuse by the Complainant which rendered the iPhone out of warranty and thus, the said alleged damage is not attributable to the answering Opposite Party. It was further stated that there is no deficiency in service on its part, and the Opposite Party No.1 had prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5. In the rejoinder, filed by the complainant, he reiterated all the averments of Opposite Party No.1, contained in the complaint.
6. The parties led evidence, in support of their case.
7. After hearing the Counsel for the Parties, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Commission, partly allowed the complaint against Opposite Party No.1, as stated above.
8. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the Opposite Party No.1.
9. We have heard the Counsel for the appellant and Respondent No.1, and have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully.
10. After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, advanced by the Parties, and the evidence, on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter.
11. We find from the records of the learned District Commission that the respondent could not use her iPhone which was purchased by her on 01.04.2017 as the said iPhone stopped working in the month of January, 2018 due to blocking of her Apple I.D. The respondent had contacted the appellant many times for doing the needful, but they turned deaf ear to her requests. Though the stand taken by the appellant is that the appellant could not open the I.D. since the message of blocking the said iPhone was received from the respondent and from no else. Further, the appellant raised their fingers questioning the ownership of the said iPhone and started demanding bank loan statement to prove that the said iPhone was in the name of the respondent. It was just a small step for the appellant to provide new
    e-mail/password to open the iPhone, but they did not do and had kept the respondent to run from pillar to post. Therefore, this Commission feels that the order passed by the learned District Commission does not suffer from any illegality and this Commission is inclined to fall in line with the decision of the District Commission and accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed.
12. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Commission is upheld.
13. Consequently, Miscellaneous Application No.121 of 2020 for condonation of delay of 45 days and Miscellaneous Application No.122 of 2020 for staying the operation of the impugned order dated 31.10.2019 also stands dismissed, having been rendered infructuous.
14. Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
15. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

 

Pronounced.

25.02.2022

      

 

                                                                     Sd/-                        

[PADMA PANDEY]

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

                                                                        Sd/-                                                

[RAJESH K. ARYA]

 MEMBER

GP