Haryana

Karnal

CC/286/2016

Sonia - Complainant(s)

Versus

Info Tech Computer & Communication - Opp.Party(s)

Naveen Khertpal

27 Feb 2017

ORDER

 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.        

                                                              Complaint No.286 of 2016

                                                             Date of instt.:20.09.2016

                                                               Date of decision 27.02.2017

 

Sonia wife of Devender Kumar resident of House no.8/28 street no.1 Hansi Chowk, Karnal.

 

                                                                   ……..Complainant.

                                      Vs.

1. Info Tech Computers & Communications S.C.O. 204, Sector 12 U.E. Karnal through its owner.

2. Apple India Pvt. Ltd. c/o 19^th floor Concorde Tower C, UB City no.24 Vital Malya Road Bangalore-560001.

                                                                   ………… Opposite Parties.

 

                     Complaint u/s 12  of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

Before                   Sh.K.C.Sharma……….President.

                   Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

 

Present:-      Shri Naveen Khaterpal Advocate for complainant.

                    Shri Anand Garg Advocate for opposite party no.1

                     Shri Dheeraj Sachdeva Advocate for opposite party no.2.

                    

                    

 ORDER:

 

                   This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer protection Act 1986, on the averments that she purchased an Apple iphone 5s mobile 16GB from Shivam communication, vide bill no.35111 dated 25.3.2016 for an amount of Rs.19500/- with the warranty of one year. After sometime, the said mobile started giving problems of auto power switch, restart, blue screen+ Display loose and slow processing. Since, July 2016 she visited the office of opposite party no.1 for repair of the mobile, but the defect could not removed after several efforts. On 2.8.2016, she again visited the office of opposite party no.1 for removal of the abovesaid defects, but opposite party no.1 refused to give services on the ground that they were unable to open the screw of the unit. She requested the opposite party no.1 for replacement of the mobile or repair of the same, but opposite party no.1 refused to remove the defects or replace the mobile set and also did not return the unit to her.  In this way, there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, due to which she faced mental harassment apart from financial loss.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite parties. Opposite party no.1 appeared and filed written statement disputing the claim of the complainant. It has been submitted that the complainant for the first time reported Blue display and restart issue. The unit was put to the concerned tests but did not fail in tests, therefore, the same was returned to the user as it was with latest iOS updated. Next time when the complainant visited opposite party no.1 with the similar issue, the unit was put to the required inspections and tests, but A Security Screw did not work. Opposite party no.1 was not to authorize by the company to open the device forcibly. The complainant was informed to pick up the unit, but he did not pick up the unit by choice.

3.                Opposite party no.2 filed separate written statement controverting the claim of the complainant. It has been pleaded that in the present case the service report issued by the opposite party no.1 specifically mentioned that the security screw of the device were tampered with, hence it could not be opened in the present Iphone 5s. Thus, it was beyond the warranty and not a fault that could be attributed to opposite party no.1 or the device supplied by opposite party no.1. It has been further submitted that opposite party no.1 made a thorough inspection of the mobile set, but could not open as the security screws were stripped. Hence service was declined and the unit was returned to the complainant on 25.7.2016.  Complainant has concealed the true facts as the mobile set was damaged due to/fault as the security screws were stripped and it could not be opened for servicing, which was observed during the VMI. Thus, the mobile was out of warranty. Hence, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party no.2.

4.                In evidence of the complainant, her affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 and C2 have been tendered.

5.                On the other hand, in evidence of the opposite parties, affidavit of Priyest Povanna Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R3 have been tendered.

6.                We have appraised the evidence on record, the material circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

7.                There is no dispute between the parties regarding the fact that the complainant had purchased one Apple iphone 5s on 25.3.2016 for an amount of Rs.19,500/-, vide invoice no.35111, the copy of which is Ex.C1. It is also not in a dispute that the complainant had taken the mobile set to opposite party no.1 on 2.8.2016 with the complaint of auto power switch, restart, blue screen+ display loose and slow processing, as is evident from the service report Ex.C2.

8.                On the other hand the opposite parties have submitted that on inspection of the mobile set it was found that A security screw did not work, which indicated tampering with the device by some unauthorized person, therefore, the same was not covered under warranty provision.

9.                It is worth pointing out at the very outset that in the service sheet Ex.C2 this fact was not mentioned that there was tampering of the mobile set  due to that screw did not work.  The screw of the mobile set was not opened by the opposite party no.1. It was the duty of the opposite party no.1 to repair the mobile set, which was still under warranty. Thus, the plea putforth by the opposite party no.1 that the security screw was not working due to tampering does not find support from any documentary evidence. A Screw might not be working due to some manufacturing defects also.  In this way, there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Opposite party no.1 was only authorized service centre of opposite party no.2, who was the manufacturer of the mobile set. Therefore, the opposite party no.2 is liable to get repaired the mobile set of the complainant and if the same is not repairable, then replace the same or pay the value thereof to the complainant.

10.              In view of the foregoing circumstances, we accept the present complaint and direct the opposite party no.2 to get removed the defects of the mobile set in question of the complainant within a period of 30 days positively and if the defects are not removed during this period to the satisfaction of the complainant, the opposite party no.2 would replace the mobile set or make payment of the price thereof to the complainant. We further direct the opposite parties no.1 and 2 to pay Rs.2200/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and for the litigation expenses within 30 days of the receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:27.2.2017

                                                                                      (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                                         President,

                                                                             District Consumer Disputes

                                                                             Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                             (Anil Sharma)

                               Member