Haryana

Ambala

CC/425/2017

Abhishek Dua - Complainant(s)

Versus

Ikon Electronics - Opp.Party(s)

18 Jun 2018

ORDER

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AMBALA

 

                                                          Complaint case no.        : 425 of 2017

                                                          Date of Institution         : 01.12.2017

                                                          Date of decision   : 18.06.2018

 

 

1.       Abhishek Dua (Advocate) s/o Sh. R.K.Dua  r/o H.No.107-E Rani Bagh, Mahesh Nagar, Ambala Cantt.

2.       Harshul Dua(Advocate) s/o Sh. R.K.Dua, r/o H.No.107-E Rani Bagh, Mahesh Nagar, Ambala Cantt.

……. Complainants.

Vs.

 

1.       IKON Electronics, SCO No.-19-20, Gulati Market, Jagadhri Road,  Ambala  Cantt through its Authorised Signatory Deepak Bhalla.

2.       IQOR Global Services India Pvt.  Ltd. Sho No.12, Ist Floor, Galaxy Mall, Sector-7, Ambala City.

3.       Apple India Private Limited, 19^th floor, Concorde Tower C, U.B.City No.24, Vittal Mallya Road, Bangalore-560001, India.

 

 ….….Opposite Parties.

 

Before:        Sh. D.N. Arora, President.

                   Sh. Pushpender  Kumar, Member.            

                  

 

 

Present:       Sh. R.K.Dua, counsel for the complainant.

                   Sh. Rajeev Sachdeva, counsel for the OP No.3.

OP Nos. 1 & 2 ex parte v.o.d. 18.01.2018.

 

 

ORDER:

In nutshell, brief facts of the present complaint is that the complainant no.1 purchased I Phone (G, IMEI bearing no.359220076585588 vide Invoice No.9057 on dated 13.9.2017 against amount of Rs. 27,500/- with one year warranty and he gifted the said phone to his younger brother- the complainant No.2 . The complainant no.1 purchased the said mobile against finance facility having an installment of Rs.3,056/- only per month started from October 2017 and the total period of the installments is of 9 months. Within five days from the date of purchase, the mobile erupted with problem as “Automatic off with restart issue and apps were not responding properly” the complainant no.2 approached the OP No.1 and apprised with the manufacturing defect of the mobile. On the advised of the OP No.1 approached to OP No.2 wherein the complainant was told to use for further  few days more to determine the problem precisely. The complainant No.2 somehow managed to use the said mobile with the same problem. The complainant no.2 again contacted to OP No.2 wherein complaint was registered on 06.11.2017 with the case no.50131809. The OP No.2 gave the diagnosis detail as :- Restore and update the device with latest los. Under observation now device working fine” on delivery challan dated 08.11.2017. and the said mobile was handed over to the complainant No.2. As the same problem was still bubbling, the OP No.2 was again contacted and same complaint was again registered on dated 10.11.2017. To shatter their legal liability, the delivery challan was generated with the diagnosis detail as: Decline for warrant services due to safety screw stripped. As per process VMI fail. Device return without repair. After this complainant No.2 contacted the OP No.3 their helpline number and from there also the complainant no.2 was denied for the replacement of the product and got the same reply. Due to the act of the Ops, the complainant has suffered mentally and physically and financially loss. Hence, the present complaint.

2.                Registered notice issued to Op Nos.1 & 2 but none have turned up on their behalf and they were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 18.01.2018. Upon notice, OP No.3 appeared through counsel and tendered written statement and stated that Op No.1 is not the authorized dealer/reseller of OP No.3. The OP No.2 who is the authorized service provider inspected the said iPhone and updated the latest IOS in his device, the issue was resolved with the iPhone and said iPhone was returned back to the complainant in working condition. The complainant again approached the OP No. 2 for same issue, the OP No.2 diagnosed the device and found that there was unauthorized modification made in the device and so the service was denied and the iPhone was returned without repair to the complainant. It is pertinent to mention that as per warranty provision of OP No.3 clause(f) to damage caused by service including upgrades and expansions) performed by anyone who is not a representative of Apple or an Apple Authorised Service Provider(“AASP”) (g) to an Apple product that has been modified to alter functionality or capability without the  written permission of Apple. The complainant was informed  that his iPhone was out of warranty  and could not be repaired under warranty.  The OP No.2 offered paid repair for the said iPhone, however the complainant declined and took his iPhone back on the same dated. The Op No.3 is not liable for any kind of deficiency in service and prayed for dismissal the present complaint.

3.               To prove his version complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure C-A with documents as annexure C-1 to C-4 and close his evidence. On the other hand, counsel for OP No.3 tendered affidavit as Annexure R-3/A with documents as Annexure R-3/1 to R-3/2 and close his evidence.

4.                We have heard learned counsel for both the parties and carefully

parties and carefully gone through the case file.

5.                The plea of complainant is that complainant had purchased iPhone 6(G), IMEI bearing no.359220076585588 vide invoice no.9057 on dated 13.09.2017 against amount of Rs.27,500/- with one year warranty from OP No.1 as  Annexure C-1. After few days of purchase, the handset creating trouble ie. Automatic off with restart issue and apps were not responding properly and due to that the said mobile was not working.  Perusal of the job sheet i.e. Annexure C-2 dated 06.11.2017 shows that the mobile set having problem i.e. “Other general problem automatic restart issue Apps are not responding  properly” and the version of complainant duly supported by his affidavit. The iPhone has been creating same problem after few days of its rectification and again as per job sheet Annexure C-3 dated 10.11.2017 shows that “other general problem automatically restart issue” but at that time OP No.2 refused to rectify the iPhone and stated that “decline the iPhone for warranty services due to safety screw stripped. As per process VMI Fail. Device return without repair”. It reveals from the Annexure C-3 that the defects of the mobile set could not be rectified by Op No.2 within its warranty period and even it was returned back without getting the necessary work done and the OP No.2/Service Centre offered paid repair for the said iPhone but complainant refused to get the same repaired on payment basis. The OP No.3 has come to this plea that the warranty become void because VMI test performed on the device was failed and found there was unauthorized modification on the safety screw was missing which occurred due to fault of the customer, so the complainant has to bear the estimated cost for repairing.

Undisputedly, the handset went out of order during warranty period, therefore, it was the duty of the OPs to get the defects removed free of cost. The plea taken by the OP No.3 that there was found unauthorized modification as the safety screw was missing is not tenable as it is not supported by any credible and authentic evidence. Moreover, it is misconceived notion that any goods can be ordered to be replaced or the cost can be ordered to be refunded only if it suffers from manufacturing defect/liquid damage because there is no such concept of goods suffering from manufacturing defect enshrined by the provision of Consumer Protection Act.  Consumer Protection Act only defines the word ‘defect’ by way of Section 2 (1) (f) of the Act which is to the following effect:

“Defect means any fault, imperfection or shortcoming in the quality, quantity, potency, purity or standard which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or under any contract, express or implied, or as is claimed by the trader in any manner whatsoever in relation to any goods.”

From the above mentioned facts and circumstances, it is clearly established that the OPs are deficient in providing service and have failed to redress the grievance of the complainant as per his satisfaction. There is enough on the record that the set in question went out of order within warranty period and the complainant has been able to prove deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Accordingly, the present compliant is allowed against OPs with cost which is assessed Rs. 3000/- and OPs directed to comply with the following directions within thirty days from receipt of copy of the order:-

1. To replace the iPhone 6 (G) IMEI bearing no.359220076585588 with a new one of the same model. If the same model is not available then to refund the cost of mobile set to the tune of Rs.27,500/- as per Annexure C-1 along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of complaint till its realization subject to returning the mobile with its accessories  in question to the Ops.

 

(ii)     Also to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- on account of cost of proceedings as assessed above.

 

                   Copy of the order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

Announced on : 18.06.2018

                    

 

 

 

 (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)                (D.N. ARORA)

                   Member                                         President