Delhi

North

CC/89/2019

CHANDRA BHANU PRATAP - Complainant(s)

Versus

I QOR GLOBAL SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

13 Mar 2023

ORDER

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I (North District)

[Govt. of NCT of Delhi]

Ground Floor, Court Annexe -2 Building, Tis Hazari Court Complex, Delhi- 110054

 

Consumer Complaint No.: 89/2019

Chandra Bhanu Pratap

House No. 17, Bagwan Appartment,

Sector-28, Rohini, Delhi-110042                                                 … Complainant                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               …Complainant

                                                          VS

IQOR Global Services India Pvt. Ltd.

Shop No. 107, First Floor Spark Mall

Kamla Nagar, New Delhi-110007                                      … Opposite party No.1

 

Apple India Pvt. Ltd.

19^th Floor, Concorde Tower C

UB City No. 24, Vital Mallya Road

Bengaluru,-560001                                                           … Opposite party No.2

ORDER

13/03/2023

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya, Member:-

Jurisdiction of this commission has been invoked by the complainant, Sh.Chandra Bhanupratap ,against IQOR Gobal Services India Pvt. Ltd. as OP-1 and Apple India Pvt. Ltd. as OP-2. 

Fact necessary for the disposal for the present complaint are that, the complainant had purchased “I phone” on 30/09/2015 with IMEI No.359244069947175.  The Complainant has stated that as the handset had stopped working (which was in the warranty period), his original defective handset was replaced with handset bearing IMEI No.355386072161460.  The “Replaced handset” was working properly for a few months but later on started to hang for which the Complainant visited the service centre, where he was asked to update the software as and when prompted and thereafter, the handset was working properly. 

After few months, the complainant noticed that due to the updating process his handset had become slow and finally on 03/01/2019, the handset restarted and stuck on ‘Apple logo’.   The complainant has further alleged that he visited the service centre where the handset was inspected in a separate room and was informed that the display of the phone was not working as there was third party installation.  It has been averred that there was no issue with the display and the phone only had software issue but still he was forced to exchange his old phone to new phone after paying Rs. 38,000/-. 

          The complainant paid Rs. 1,500/- on account of inspection and was told that after inspection he shall be informed about the data which has not been done from the date of submission i.e. 04/01/2019.

Hence, the present Complaint with prayer for directions to OPs to :

1. Repair the handset and recover the data;
2. In case the phone is not repairable, the compensation for the loss of data and
3. Compensation on account of harassment and loss to extent of Rs.2,00,000/-. 

The complainant has annexed tax invoice for Rs.1,500/-, e-mails exchanged with OPs; the original bill dated 30/09/2015 along with the complainant.

Notice of the present complaint was served upon on OPs.  As no one appeared on behalf of OP-1, nor any reply was filed on their behalf despite service hence they were proceeded “Ex-parte” vide order dated 08/10/2019.

Written Statement was filed on behalf of the OP-2, where they have taken several pleas in their defence. They have submitted that the present complaint was false, vexatious and malafide, the Complainant had concealed material facts: the Complainant was negligent in handling the product, thus as per Apple Warranty, the damaged parts are excluded. They have reproduced the extracts from Warranty Conditions:

HOW TO OBTAIN WARRANTY SERVICE

Please access and review the online help resources described below before seeking warranty service. If Apple product is still not functioning properly after making us e of these resources, please contact an Apple representative or, if applicable, an Apple owned retail store(“Apple Retail”) or AASP, using the information provided below. An Apple representative or AASP will help determine whether your Apple Product requires service and, if it does, will inform you how Apple will provide it. When contacting Apple via telephone, other charges may apply depending on your location.

This Warranty does not apply:

(a).....

(b)....

(c) to damage caused by use with a third party component or product that does not meet the Apple Product’s specifications (Apple Product specifications are available at www.apple.com under the technical specifications for each product and also available in stores);

(d)...

(e)...

(f) to damage caused by service(including upgrades and expansions) performed by anyone who is not representative of Apple or an Apple Authorised Service Peovider(“AASP”).

(g)...

As the alleged damage was caused on account of negligent and misuse of the handset, the product was out of Warranty.It has been admitted that the handset ‘Iphone 6 plus’ 64 GB bearing IMEI No. 359244069947175 was replaced as it was under warranty period. It was also admitted that the Complainant approached OP-1 on 03.01.2019, with issue of “stuck in Apple Logo”. OP-1 diagnosed the device & found that it was tampered by third party, for which Complainant was informed and was offered an exchange price for replacement of the device, which was denied by the Complainant and thereafter, the Complainant never approached     OP-1. They have denied that there was manufacturing defect, so they were not liable for any refund/replacement.

OP-2 has further submitted that the Complainant was never denied any services, therefore no deficiency in services can be alleged against them. They had offered exchange price of Rs. 28,000/- and not Rs.38,000/- as alleged by the Complainant.

Copy of Apple One (1) Year Limited Warranty conditions has been annexed with the Written Statement as Annexure –R1

 Rejoinder to the Written Statement of OP-2 was filed by the Complainant. He has reaffirmed the contents of his complaint and denied those of the Written Statement of OP-2. He has submitted that as per media reports, Apple new update IOS 12.1, the phones were getting software problem like hanging, restarting, poor battery support, Wi-fi problem. He has further submitted that in December 2018, Apple acknowledged that its IOS Software was slowing down the performance of older I phone’s. The Complainant has annexed the printouts from Google.

Evidence by way of Affidavit was filed by the Complainant. The Complainant has repeated the contents of the complaint. He has deposed that on Mr. Mohit, from customer care of OP-2 had mentioned an amount of rs.28,800/-.

OP-2 have got examined Sh. Priyesh Poovanna, Country Legal Counsel, Apple India Ltd. on their behalf. He has got exhibited, the extracts of Board Resolution authorizing him as Annexure-R1. It has been stated that the Complainant had not placed any evidence to show that a defective handset was sold to him and as the handset was out of warranty the Complainant was liable to pay of services. Rest of the contents of their Written Statement have also been reiterated.

We have heard the submission made by the Complainant, who is appearing in person and the arguments of Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of OP-2. The Complainant has alleged that after software update, his handset got stuck at “Apple Logo”. It is not the case of the Complainant that there was manufacturing defect, what he is aggrieved is, with the refusal on part of OP-1, the authorised service centre of OP-2 to repair/rectify the issue in his handset on the ground that there was unauthorised modification so the devise was not eligible for services.

The Complainant in support of his allegations has filed Delivery Challan,  dated 04.01.2019.. The status of said handset is “Out of Warranty” and Date of Purchase is 30.09.2015. the relevant portion is being reproduced:

General Problem	Device stuck on brand logo IPHONE STUCK ON RECOVERY MODE.	Diagnosis Details: Escalated with Apple. Devise have unauthorized modification so devise is not Eligible for services same returned to customer
Physical Status	NORMAL SCTRECHES AND DENTS. DUPLICATE DISPLA FOUND. SOME SCREW IS ALSO MISSING. VMI FAILED BY GAUTAM.	ACCESSORIES: ONLY IPHONE IS TAKEN FOR DIAGNOSIS.

 

          OP-2 has also reiterated the noting made by OP-1 in the Delivery Challan dated 04.01.2019. OP-1 chose not to appear nor did they filed their reply. The allegation made by the Complainant that his handset was inspected in a separate room has remained unrebutted. As far as OP-2 is concerned, they have not filed a single document in support of their defence that there was unauthorised modification in the device/handset. The only document filed by OP-2 is the Apple One(1) Year Warranty conditions, which are not applicable in the present case as the handset of the Complainant was out of Warranty. It is also not the defence of OP-2 that the hand set was beyond repairs, they simply returned the device on the premise that there was unauthorised modification; no correlation can be established that the problem was due to the unauthorised modification. When, the Complainant is willing to get the handset repaired by paying the cost of repairs, then the denial to repair the handset definitely amounts to deficiency in service         by OP-1 and OP-2

          The handset has been used by the Complainant for almost 4 years, taking into the account that the value of the handset must have depreciated. Therefore, in the facts and circumstance of the present complaint, we direct OP-1 and OP-2 to  jointly and severally pay the depreciated value of the handset Rs. 30,500/- (50% of Rs.61,000/-) along with Rs.10,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by Complainant due to non repair of the handset by OPs.

As the Complainant has placed nothing on record to quantify the loss suffered by him on loss account of data, hence, no compensation is being awarded on that account.

          This order be complied within 30 days from the receipt of this order else   Rs. 40,500/- ( Rs.30,500/- plus 10,000/-) shall carry interest @7% p.a. from the date of order till realization.

          Office is directed to supply the copy of this order to the parties as per rules.  Order be also uploaded on the website. 

Thereafter, file be consigned to the record room.

 

(Harpreet Kaur Charya) Member	(Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar)                             President