Tamil Nadu
South Chennai
CC/206/2019
Divya Thiagarajan - Complainant(s)
Versus
Imagine store Ample Technologies - Opp.Party(s)
Sanjay Pinto
26 Jun 2023
ORDER
Date of Complaint Filed : 08.08.2019
Date of Reservation : 13.06.2023
Date of Order : 26.06.2023
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
CHENNAI (SOUTH), CHENNAI-3.
PRESENT: TMT. B. JIJAA, M.L., : PRESIDENT
THIRU. T.R. SIVAKUMHAR, B.A., B.L., : MEMBER I
THIRU. S. NANDAGOPALAN., B.Sc., MBA., : MEMBER II
CONSUMER COMPLAINT No.206/2019
MONDAY, THE 26th DAY OF JUNE 2023
Divya Thiagarajan,
82/2, Raj Paris,
Padavattamman Koil Street,
Kosapet,
Chennai - 600 012. .. Complainant.
-Vs-
1. Imagine Store,
Ample Technologies Pvt. Ltd.,
Represented by its Proprietor,
SO -21, Ground Floor, Express Avenue,
2, Club House Road,
Chennai-600 002.
2. I Care Apple Authorised Service Provider,
Ample Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Represented by its Manager,
1st Floor, 47, T.T.K Road, Alwarpet,
(Above Imagine Store, Next to Bata Showroom)
Chennai - 600 018.
3. Apple India Private Limited,
Represented by its Managing Director,
19th Floor, Concorde Tower C, UB City,
No.24, Vittal Mallya Road,
Bengaluru - 560 001. .. Opposite Parties.
* * * * *
Counsel for the Complainant : M/s.Sanjay Pinto, Advocate,
Counsel for Opposite Parties 1 &2 : M/s.Rajesh Ramanathan, Adv.,
Counsel for 3rd Opposite Party : M/s. J.Anand&D.Kumar, Adv.,
Upon hearing the oral Arguments of the Counsel for the Complainant and the Counsel for the Opposite Parties, this Commission delivered the following:
ORDER
Pronounced by the President Tmt. B. Jijaa, M.L.,
(i) The Complainant has filed this complaint as against the Opposite Parties under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and prays to direct the Opposite Parties to make a full refund of Rs.97,500/- which was the cost of the iphone to the Complainant with interest and to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony, psychological trauma and financial loss suffered in a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- and to pay the cost of the complaint.
1. The averments of Complaint in brief are as follows:-
1. The Complainant submitted that she purchased an iPhone X 64 GB Space Grey (Part No MQA52HN/A) (HSN Code 85171290) Ample SN: 2188606 IMEI:356740888389080 Serial No:SG0PVQ16NJCLF on the 30.12.2017 from the 1st Opposite Party manufactured by the 3rd Opposite Party for a hefty sum of Rs, 97,500/- including iCare Assure Lite X.0 insurance and applicable taxes vide Invoice No. IMESL408017.
2. The Complainant submitted that within a year, on 29.12.2018, she took the above mentioned iPhone to the 2nd Opposite Party, the Authorised Service Centre, as the bottom part of the screen had cracked and the audio through ear phones was feeble. During the servicing, a malfunctioning sound port and other technical defects in the iPhone were detected. Hence replaced iPhone under servify insurance. This was the start of the Complainant's woes.
3. The Complainant submitted that to her chagrin and dismay, the replaced mobile was defective and started malfunctioning and had to be taken back to the Service Centre, run by the 2nd Opposite Party, within 48 hours on the 9th January, 2019 with the issue “Restarting with apple logo." The phone was allegedly serviced by the 2nd Opposite Party. Although she had picked up the allegedly “serviced iPhone from the 2nd Opposite Party on the 14th January, 2019, it was far from a "good condition" as the diagnostic report claimed. For the next few months, the Complainant found it difficult to contact her family, colleagues and friends vice versa. She was constrained to send it back for servicing to the 2nd Opposite Party for the second time on the 14th March, 2019 was supposedly ready for pick up on the 18th March 2019. Yet again, after just a fortnight, her iPhone scored a hat-trick of sorts by acting up and she had to trudge to the 2nd Opposite Party on the 1st of April, 2019 for the third time for an unexpected restart issue. In an all too familiar pattern, on the 5th of April, 2019, the device was ready for pick up.
4. The Complainant submitted that after barely three weeks, exasperated and exhausted to the core, she knocked on the doors of the 2nd Opposite Party on the 26th April, 2019, for the fourth time, with a persistent complaint registered as "restarting with apple logo and touch is intermittently not working.'" The snag was witnessed by the executive in the team of the 2nd Opposite Party. On the 1st of May, 2019, the phone was ready for pick up with the following diagnosis:
"Reset and restored to latest iOS. Ran apple service tool kit test and all test passed Checked the iPhone by manual usage and observed more than 2 days no restarting issue persist and touch is working fine. Hence it is according to the apple specification. Hence returning the device back to customer in same condition,". The Complainant collected the iPhone on the 13th May, 2019.
5. The Complainant submitted that due to an obvious inherent defect in the replaced iPhone and the deficiency in servicing and negligence in finding a solution by the 2nd and 3rd Opposite Parties, her costly iPhone continues to have the following problems.
a) The phone switches off and on randomly, upto 4 to 5 times in a few hours
and also while in use.
b) Messages on the phone get disrupted.
c) The phone hangs.
d) The screen freezes.
e)The default app panel sometimes disappears. f) The screen turns dark when the on off button is pressed, requiring pressing multiple times for the phone to brighten to screen light.
g) Disruption also when listening to music.
6. The Complainant submitted that she obtained an Expert opinion about her iPhone from Mr.Rajaram Srinath, who after careful inspection and examination of the Complainant's iPhone, the Expert concluded that there were serious defects and confirmed the malfunctioning of Complainant's iPhone.
7. Inspite of contacting the Opposite Parties there has been no relief or solution provided to the Complainant, till date. Hence the Complainant was constrained to issue Legal Notices dated 3rdJuly, 2019 to the Opposite Parties. So far, the Opposite Parties have not complied with the Complainant's demands for redressal. Under these circumstances, this complaint is filed.
II. Written Version filed by the Opposite Parties 1 & 2 in brief is as follows:
8. The 1st & 2nd Opposite Parties deny the various allegations made in the above Complaint, except those that are expressly admitted there under. Without prejudice to the above the 1st and 2nd Opposite Parties submit that the Complainant submitted her iPhone X 64 GB ("device") bearing Serial
No.SGOPVQ16NJCLF for servicing and repair on five different occasions to
the 1st and 2nd Opposite Parties. On 29.12.2018 the Complainant approached the answering Opposite Parties with the complaint that the bottom part of the device's screen had cracked and feeble audio was heard through the headphones. On 07.01.19, the device was diagnosed with having multiple cracks on display and persistent heating issue and thus was replaced under Servify Insurance. Subsequently on 09.01.2019, 14.03.2019, 01.04.2019 and 26.04.2019 the Complainant approached the answering Opposite Parties alleging problem in the device which was diagnosed, repaired and handed over to the customer in good condition on all the occasions.
9. The above facts and circumstances clearly establish that the opposite
parties have been diligent in providing the Complainant with efficient and
competent service on each and every one of the aforementioned occasions.
The Complainant has filed this complaint on frivolous and baseless
allegations with an ulterior motive to tarnish the reputation and work
ethics of the 1st and 2nd Opposite Parties and therefore, prayed to dismiss the above complaint with exemplary costs and thus render justice.
III. Written Version filed by the 3rd Opposite Party in brief is as follows:
10. The 3rd Opposite Party submitted that at the outset, it is pertinent to mention that the telecommunication devices sold in India by the 3rd Opposite Party through their authorized dealers/resellers are known for their cutting-edge technology and utmost Customer satisfaction. Due to the said attributes the Apple iPhone X 64 GB is one of the largest selling devices in the world and India. The 3rd Opposite Party submitted that the iPhone X 64 GB and other products undergo strict quality tests to ensure that the said products maintain high standards to ensure that they do not fail to meet industry standards. It is also submitted that the 3rd Opposite Party is a world
renowned market and innovation leader and has been the flag-bearer of
technological advancements in the tele communication devices, computing and communications space.
11. It is not disputed the fact that the mobile phone viz. iPhone X 64 GB (iPhone) was purchased by Complainant from the 1st Opposite Party as mentioned. It is true that the earlier mobile phone was replaced by an iPhone X ("new iPhone") in good Condition under the terms of the servify insurance and the same was acknowledged by the Complainant. It is further submitted that the alleged averments with regard to the new iPhone is due to the Complainant's own fault by mishandling and not a fault that can be attributed to the 3rd Opposite Party or the device supplied by the 3rd Opposite Party .
12. It is pertinent to submit that the Third Opposite Party is known for its Consumer support system not only in India but across the world. Under the present facts, the 2nd Opposite Party which is an Authorized Service Provider of 3rd Opposite Party diligently under took efforts to diagnose the problem with the alleged new iPhone of the Complainant when the same was brought to the 2nd Opposite Party by the Complainant. Accordingly, the 2nd Opposite Party made a thorough technical analysis on the new iPhone as presented by the Complainant and returned the device to the Complainant in good condition after servicing / trouble shooting the problems reported by the Complainant. It is further understood by the 3rd Opposite Party that the Complainant has not properly handled / used the device for which caused the problems repeatedly. It is specifically submitted that the Complainant's suppression and concealment is evident from the fact that after the diagnosis of the new iPhone, there was no issues found in the new iPhone as alleged by the Complainant and it is remarked in all them Service report stating “no issue replicated. Hence it is according to apples specifications. Therefore, the instant Complaint holds no good at the face of it, for this reason the present Complaint is liable to be dismissed.
13. The Opposite Parties submitted that the Complainant has launched this complaint before this Hon'ble Forum with a sole intention to make wrongful loss to the Opposite Parties. The Opposite Parties have never committed any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice as alleged by the Complainant instead the Complainant trying to take shelter by initiating this proceedings before this Hon'ble Forum with imaginary stories coupled with, purportedly created documents to achieve her illegal and wrongful gain. Hence prayed to dismiss the complaint with cost.
IV. The Complainant has filed his proof affidavit, Additional proof affidavit in support of his claim in the complaint and has filed 52 documents which are marked as Ex.A1 to A52. The Opposite Parties 1 & 2 have submitted their proof affidavit, Ex.B1 to B11 marked on their side. The 3rd Opposite Party had submitted his proof affidavit and Ex.B12 was marked. Both side written arguments filed.
Points for Consideration:-
1.Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties?
2.Whether the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for?
3. To what other relief, the Complainant is entitled to?
POINT NO. 1 :-
14. Upon perusal of Ex.A-1 it is seen that the Complainant had purchased an iPhone X 64 GB Space Grey bearing Ample SN: 2188606 IMEI:356740888389080 Serial No: SG0PVQ16NJCLF on 30.12.2017 from the first Opposite Party for a sum of Rs.97,500/-. On 29.12.2018, she had taken the iPhone to the second Opposite Party, the Authorised Service Centre, whose diagnostic details are as follows as per Ex.A-4:
“Reported Issue: Multiple cracks on display. Reset and restored iPhone. Unable to run test due to multiple cracks on display. Checked the iPhone manually and abnormal heating issue persists”.
15. Further as per Ex.A-5, the 2nd Opposite Party had replaced the defective iPhone on the 07.01.2019. With endorsement:
“Checked the internal condition found no sign of liquid damage and no unauthorised modifications. Verified the IMEI number and Serial number. Hence replaced iPhone under servify insurance.”
16. The Opposite Parties had admitted that the Complainant submitted her iPhone X 64 GB ("device") bearing Serial No.SGOPVQ16NJCLF for servicing and repair on five different occasions to the 1st and 2nd Opposite Parties which are described in detail below:
i) On 29.12.2018 the Complainant approached the Opposite
Parties with the complaint that the bottom part of the device's screen
had cracked and feeble audio was heard through the headphones. A
Repair Acceptance Form (RAF: IMT1782182), Ex.B-2 was generated as per
standard procedure upon surrender of the device by the Complainant,
recording that there were multiple cracks on display and that the
charging port was to be checked. On 07.01.19, the device was
diagnosed with having multiple cracks on display and persistent heating
issue and thus was replaced under Servify Insurance. A service report
was issued on the same day to the Complainant reporting said details.
ii) On 09.01.2019 the Complainant approached the Opposite
Parties with the issue that the replacement device was "restarting with
apple logo", for which RAF: IMT1789209,Ex.R-4 was generated. The device was tested, checked and observed by the Opposite Parties and no issues were found to have been replicated. A service report was issued to the
Complainant on 11.01.19 stating the same and the device was returned
to the Complainant in good condition.
iii) On 14.03.2019 the Complainant approached the answering Opposite
Parties alleging multiple issues with the device, such as "Constant
restart Phone hangs while in use. Weird repeated disrupting tone when
music plays or during incoming message tone; also the phone hangs at
such times. Phone flickers, sometimes the on/off button has to be clicked
multiple times for the light on the screen to brighten", for which RAF:
IMT1819773, Ex.B-6 was generated. The device was tested and observed by the Opposite Parties and no issues were found to have been replicated. A service report dated 18.03.19, Ex.B-7 was generated and the device was handed back to the Complainant in good condition.
iv) On 01.04.2019 the Complainant approached the Opposite Parties alleging "unexpected restarts issue" with the device, for which
RAF: IMT1828014,Ex.A-8 was generated. The device was tested and observed by the Opposite Parties and found no replication of the issues complained of. A service report dated 05.04.19, Ex.A-9 was generated and the device was handed back to the Complainant in good condition on same day.
v) On 26.04.2019 the Complainant approached the Opposite
Parties alleging that the device was "restarting with apple logo and touch
is intermittently not working". The device was tested and checked by the
Opposite Parties and was found to be as per Apple's specifications. A
service report was generated dated 01.05.19, Ex.B-11 and the device was
handed over to the customer in the same condition.
17. The contention of the 3rd Opposite party is that Complainant is well aware that there is no issues in the new iPhone, the said new iPhone is working perfectly fine and due to Complainant's mishandling of the new iPhone is facing issues which cannot be attributed to 3rd Opposite Party. Further that the Complainant is well aware equally that such acts in effect breach the terms of the Apple Warranty meaning thereby that the Opposite Parties are not liable for and required to return the cost of the new iPhone.
18. The contention of the Opposite Parties is that the above facts would clearly establish that the Opposite Parties have been diligent in providing the Complainant with efficient and competent service on all and hence there is no deficiency in service on their part. The Complainant has not come before this Hon'ble Forum with clean hands supported by sufficient and adequate documentary proof, The Second Opposite Party has attended / serviced the device promptly without any delay or default and the same was acknowledged by the Complainant.
19. The followings judgements are relied on the side of the Complainant on the point that inspite of multiple visits to the service centre the problem in the product could not be rectified and held deficient for supplying defective product.
1. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Samsung India Electronics Pvt., -Vs- Farooq Khan &Anr –RP/1810/2017
2. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Tata Motors Ltd., -Vs- Bishqmber Nath Sikka &Anr., 2017 SCC Online NCDRC 1723.
3. Uttarkhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Dehradun in Apple India Pv.t., Ltd., -Vs- Prashant Khaduri, 2022 (A/16/2016)
4. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Tata Motors -Vs- Rajesh Tyagi &Anr – SCC Online NCDRC 1031.
5.State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh in LavishaBansal -Vs- Xiaomi India And Others, 2019 First Appeal No.400 0f 2018.
6.State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttarkhand, Dehradun in Ujjaval Telecom and Another -Vs- Lalit Kumar And Another 2017, First Appeal No.79/2016.
7. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh in M/S XoloCare -Vs- Tarun Sharma 2017 A//930/2016.
8. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT, Chandigarh in SimerpreetSingh -Vs- Punjab Mobile Care, 2016 A/263/2016.
The Complainant relied on the following judgements on the point that non submission of report / affidavit of service of mechanical engineer who examined the mobile phone amounts to deficiency in service:
9. H.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla in Sh.Ajay –Vs- Himalaya Photo Store &Ors 2019 First Appeal No. 286/2018.
10. H.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla in Reliance Retail Ltd., &Ors –Vs- Sh. Vinay Soni &Anr., 2018- First Appeal No.30/2018.
20. Further relied upon the order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Pvt., Ltd., -Vs – Meghna Corporate Pvt., Ltd., &Anr., 2020 (2020 SCC Online NCDRC 910), where it was held that expert opinion is required only when the defect could not be ascertained, in that case as there were 25 job cards showing repair and replacement which were based on evidences were sufficient to determine the defect in vehicle.
The judgements relied by the Opposite Parties 1 & 2 are as follows
1. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Baljit Kaur –Vs - Divine Motors & Anr., Revision petition No.1336 of 2017.
2. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gurgaon in Khushi Ram Sharma –Vs- The Management, Hongfujin precision Industry & 2 ors, CC.No. 37 of 2018.
3. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Amar Kumar Saraswat –Vs- Volkswagen Group Sales India Pvt., Ltd., & Anr., Revision Petition No. 567 of 2017
In all the above 3 cases it was held that in the absence of expert opinion manufacturing defect cannot be proved and hence no replacement or refund is made out.
Further the Opposite Parties 1 & 2 relied upon the following 2 judgements that for the manufacturing defect in the product dealer cannot be held liable
4. Hindustan Motors Ltd and Anr –Vs- N.Siva Kumar and Anr., (2000) 10 SCC 654.
5. Ramesh Electronics –Vs- Society for Consumers, SCDRC, Delhi First Appeal No.124/2005.
21. Per contra, the Complainant had relied the following judgments on the requirements for the admissibility of expert opinion and on the non compliance of the procedure prescribed under Section 13(1)(c) to (g) of the Act to determine the defect.
1. (2009) 9 Supreme Court Cases 709, Ramesh Chandra Agarwal Vs Regency Hospital Limited and others
2. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Rajeev Agrahari –Vs- M/s. Society Motors Ltd., &Ors. (2015 SCC Online NCDRC 4483)
22. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Kataria Automiles –Vs - Prabodhkant Damodaras Pandya and Another – 2021 SCC Online NCDRC 737
23. (2012) 2 Supreme Court Cases 506 : (2012)1 Supreme court Cases (Civ) 908: 2012 SCC Online SC 55. In National Seeds Corporation Limited –Vs- M.Madhusudhan Reddy and Another.
24. (2004) 2 Supreme Court Cases 278 : 2004 SCC Online SC 119 – Jose Philip Mampillil –Vs - Premier Automobiles Ltd., and Another .
25. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. In Ashoke Khan –Vs- Abdul Karim 2005 SCC Online All 725: AIR 2005 All 396.
26. The followings judgements relied by the 3rd Opposite Party on the failure to prove the manufacturing defect, there was no question of replacement or refund of price money:
1. Supreme Court of India – C.A.No.8701 of 1997-Ravneet Singh Bagga –Vs0 KLM Royal Dutch Airlines and Others.
2. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi – Revision petition No.2670 of 2010 –Kumari Namrata Singh –Vs- Manager, Indus and another.
3.National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi – Revision petition No.374-375 of 2005 –Classic Automobiles –Vs- Lila Nand Mishra and others.
4. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi – Sushila Automobiles Pvt., Ltd., -Vs- Birendra Narain Prasad and others.
5. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission of Uttrakahand, Dehradum –First Appeal No. 104 of 2011 – Manager, Ashutosh Goyam –Vs-Ashok Bjatt and another.
6. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi –Revision Petition No.2309 of 2008 – Tata Motors –Vs- Deepak Goyal and others.
27. On discussions made above and considering the case laws cited above and in the given facts and circumstances of the case, the 1st and 2nd Opposite Party had replaced the defective mobile of the Complainant on 07.01.2019. However the replaced mobile started giving problem within few days, which constrained the Complainant to take the mobile for service to the Opposite Parties. Inspite of multiple visits and services, the Opposite Parties were unable to fix the problem leaving the Complainant in a difficult situation in communication with others without her mobile, which has become essential in today’s life style. The Complainant inspite of adopting the procedure prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act under Section 13(1)(c) to (g) to determine the defects in the goods had resorted to obtain an Expert Opinion on her own, who is qualified and have expertise in that field had pointed out the defects of the mobile. Hence this Commission is of the considered view that the Opposite Parties 1 to 3 were unable to fix and cure the defect in the mobile of the Complainant inspite of frequent repairs and hence committed deficiency in service. Accordingly Point No.1 is answered.
Point Nos.2 and 3:-
28. As discussed and decided in Point No.1 against the Opposite Parties, The Opposite Parties 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to refund a sum of Rs.97,500/- towards the cost of the iPhone to the Complainant and a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards deficiency in service and mental agony, along with cost of Rs.5,000/-. Accordingly, Point Nos. 2 and 3 are answered.
In the result, the complaint is allowed in part. The 1st, 2nd and 3rd Opposite Parties are directed jointly and severally to refund a sum of Rs.97,500/- (Rupees Ninety Seven Thousand Five Hundred Only) towards the cost of the iPhone to the Complainant and a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) towards deficiency in service and mental agony, along with cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) to the Complainant, within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the above amount of Rs.97,500/- shall carry interest at the rate of 9% from the date of receipt of this order till the date of realisation.
Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Commission, on 26th of June 2023.
S. NANDAGOPALAN T.R. SIVAKUMHAR B.JIJAA
MEMBER II MEMBER I PRESIDENT
List of documents filed on the side of the Complainant:-
Ex.A1 | 30.12.2017 | iPhone Tax Invoice Bill |
Ex.A2 | 29.12.2018 | iPhone Repair Acceptance Form – Email from iCare |
Ex.A3 | 03.01.2019 | iPhone Repair status – Email From iCare |
Ex.A4 | 07.01.2019 | iPhone Ready for Delivery – Email from iCare |
Ex.A5 | 07.01.2019 | iPhone Repair closed – Email From iCare |
Ex.A6 | 09.01.2019 | iPhone Repair Acceptance Form – Email from ICare |
Ex.A7 | 11.01.2019 | iPhone Ready for Delivery – Email from iCare |
Ex.A8 | 14.01.2019 | iPhone Repair closed – email from iCare |
Ex.A9 | 16.01.2019 | Email from Apple Support |
Ex.A10 | 19.01.2019 | Screenshot of Message from Friend Enquiring About Lack of Normal Messages from the Complainant |
Ex.A11 | 21.01.2019 | Email from Apple Support |
Ex.A12 | 21.01.2019 | Email from Apple Support |
Ex.A13 | 14.03.2019 | iPhone Repair Acceptance Form- Email from iCare |
Ex.A14 | 14.03.2019 | Screenshot of Messages to Close Family about the absence of the iPhone |
Ex.A15 | 18.03.2019 | iPhone Ready for Delivery – Email from iCare |
Ex.A16 | 19.03.2019 | iPhone Repair closed- Email from iCare |
Ex.A17 | 01.04.2019 | iPhone Repair Acceptance Form – Email from iCare |
Ex.A18 | 03.04.2019 | iPhone Repair Status-Email From iCare |
Ex.A19 | 05.04.2019 | iPhone Ready for Delivery – Email from iCare |
Ex.A20 | 05.04.2019 | Email from Apple Support |
Ex.A21 | 12.04.2019 | iPhone Repair closed – Email from iCare |
Ex.A22 | 16.04.2019 | Acknowledgement Email From Apple Support |
Ex.A23 | 16.04.2019 | Screenshot of the Complainant’s Delayed Reply 16.04.2019 to a Message sent on 04.04.2019 |
Ex.A24 | 18.04.2019 | Screenshot of the Complainant’s message to her Boss requesting him to Resend Email Address as her iPhone Restarted and all messages got delayed |
Ex.A25 | 26.04.2019 | iPhone Repair Acceptance Form – Email from iCare |
Ex.A26 | 26.04.2019 | Email from Apple Support |
Ex.A27 | 26.04.2019 and 30.04.2019 | Email from Apple Support Staff Punam Kumari and Complainant’s reply to Email from Apple Support staff Punam Kumari |
Ex.A28 | 27.04.2019 | Screenshot of Message from Complainant’s friend sent on 27.04.2019 could be replied only on 19.06.2019 |
Ex.A29 | 01.05.2019 | iPhone Ready for delivery – Email from iCare |
Ex.A30 | 02.05.2019 | Screenshot of Messages to a colleague regarding important sponsorship information from mother’s Phone Number used in An Old Phone |
Ex.A31 | 04.05.2019 | Email from Apple Support Richa |
Ex.A32 | 08.05.2019 | Email from Apple Support wrongly Addressing the Complainant as “Mohammed” |
Ex.A33 | 13.05.2019 | iPhone Repair closed – Email from iCare |
Ex.A34 | 29.05.2019 | Screenshot of message from Best friend who was unable to reach to inform that he is in the Family way |
Ex.A35 | 07.06.2019 | Email from Apple Support Richa |
Ex.A36 | 11.06.2019 | Screenshot of files sent to Apple Support |
Ex.A37 | 13.06.2019 | Email from Apple Support |
Ex.A38 | 14.06.2019 | Article in Theinquirer. Net Titled ”Apple Spends 10,000 Dollars Fixing A MacBook with Screen Brightness set Too Low” |
Ex.A39 | Over a period of time | Screenshot of updates sent to Many friends Over A Period Of Time Informing That The Phone Was In Service Centre |
Ex.A40 | Over a period of time | Sample of Analytics on The iphone stating ‘Panic Full’ That Denotes Phone Switching Off |
Ex.A41 | Over a period of time | Screenshot of Call Logs on iCloud Id To Show No Calls Between 20.05.2019 to 31.03.2019 |
Ex.A42 | Over a period of time | Screenshot of the Complainant’s Message to her friend that even Apple Support Could not reach her and had sent an Email instead |
Ex.A43 | 03.07.2019 | Legal Notice to the Opposite Parties |
Ex.A44 | 08.07.2019 | Proof of Delivery of Legal Notice to 3rd Opposite Party |
Ex.A45 | 09.07.2019 | Proof of Delivery of Legal Notice to 1st Opposite Party |
Ex.A46 | 22.07.2019 | Proof of Delivery of Legal Notice to 2nd Opposite Party |
Ex.A47 | 10.07.2019 | Email Reply to Legal Notice From 3rd Opposite Party |
Ex.A48 | 21.07.2019 | Expert Opinion-Affidavit of Rajaram Srinath |
Ex.A49 | 28.09.1996 | Expert’s Masters Degree in Electrical Communication Engineering from the Indian Institute of Science (IISC) |
Ex.A50 | 20.07.2004 | Expert’s Experience letter from Hughes Network systems, USA |
Ex.A51 | 01.10.2008 | Expert’s Experience Letter from WIPRO |
Ex.A52 | 31.10.2022 | Additional Affidavit/Additional Expert Opinion |
List of documents filed on the side of the 1st and 2nd Opposite Parties:-
Ex.B1 |
| Authorization of Gomathi Raju executed by Opposite Party |
Ex.B2 | 29.12.2018 | Repair acceptance form bearing RAF:IMT1782182 |
Ex.B3 | 07.01.2019 | Service Report |
Ex.B4 | 09.01.2019 | Repair Acceptance Form bearing RAF:RAF:IMT1789209 |
Ex.B5 | 11.01.2019 | Service Report |
Ex.B6 | 14.03.2019 | Repair Acceptance Form bearing RAF:IMT1819773 |
Ex.B7 | 18.03.2019 | Service Report |
Ex.B8 | 01.04.2019 | Repair Acceptance Form bearing RAF: IMT1828014 |
Ex.B9 | 05.04.2019 | Service Report |
Ex.B10 | 26.04.2019 | Repair Acceptance Form bearing RAF:IMT1839565 |
Ex.B11 | 01.05.2019 | Service Report |
List of documents filed on the side of the 3rd Opposite Party:-
Ex.B12 |
| Letter of Authorization |
S. NANDAGOPALAN T.R. SIVAKUMHAR B.JIJAA
MEMBER II MEMBER I PRESIDENT
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
Bhanu Pratap
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)
Bhanu Pratap
Featured RecomendedHighly recommended!
Experties
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Phone Number
7982270319
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.