Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 524
Instituted on : 06.09.2022
Decided on : 22.08.2023
Ankit Hooda age 27 years, s/o Ravinder Kumar Hooda, R/o 125L/2, Model Town, Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- iNvent Store, Premium Apple Reseller, 866/1, Rajinder Kinha Tower, Delhi Rohtak Road, Jhang colony, Rohtak.
- Apple India Pvt. Ltd. No. 24, 19th Floor, Concorde Tower, UB City, Vittal Mallya Road, Bangluru, Karnataka-560001(Manufacturer).
- DIGICARE Services Apple Rohtak at Shop no.106, First Floor, Sheetal Life Style Mall D-Park, Rohtak-124001(Authorized service center Apple India). …….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 35 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,2019.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR.VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Divyam Panghal, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Digvijay Jakhar, Advocate for the opposite party No. 1.
Sh. R.K. Jangra, Advocate for opposite party no. 2.
Opposite party No.3 already exparte.
ORDER
VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER:
1. Brief facts of the case as per complainant are that he purchased a mobile phone make Apple Iphone 13 128 GB Colour Black vide IMEI No. 359451182608317, from opposite party no. 1 on dated 23.02.2022 against payment of Rs.72900/- and also purchased one charger for Rs.1900/-. The opposite party no. 1 offered one year warranty for the said mobile phone. It is further submitted that at the time of sale of the said phone, opposite party no. 1 assured that the said mobile phone is manufactured by opposite party no. 2 and opposite party No.3 is the authorized service provider of Apple India. After purchase of the said mobile, the complainant started using the unit as per guidelines and instructions for use by manufacturer and the same worked only for some days, but after 15 days of purchase, the complainant faced some problems in the mobile. The mobile of the complainant started hanging, the screen used to freeze and applications began to close down on their own. The airdrop function of the mobile phone didn’t work due to which there was a lot of hassle faced by the complainant. It kept on rebooting on its own. It stopped responding and due to the said defect, the complainant was unable to do any function of the mobile. It also created a lot of error cache files on its own which further slowed down the device a lot. The complainant contacted opposite party No.1 for the said defect but he was directed to visit the office of opposite party No.3. Complainant contacted the opposite party No.3 on 31.03.2022 but the handset was returned to the complainant after resetting it. After some days the issue began repeating itself. Complainant visited the service centre again on 10.06.2022 but this time also they took the mobile for half a day and returned it in the same condition without doing absolutely anything to resolve the issue. This time the issues started to grow more severe as problems such as heating and calls hanging started to take place. It is also submitted that during this time, the complainant was also forced to remove his screen guards from the front and back of the phone and the complainant faced unnecessary loss of two screen guards to the tune of Rs.1200/-. Complainant requested the opposite parties either to resolve the issues or to replace the mobile with new one. But the opposite parties refused to accept the genuine request of the complainant. As such there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Hence, this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to pay Rs.74800/- alongwith interest @24% per annum from the date of purchase and also to pay Rs.51,000/- as compensation and Rs.51,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant as explained in relief clause.
2. After registration of complaint, notices were issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party No. 1 in its reply has submitted that he is only reseller and the said phone is manufactured by the opposite party no. 2. Opposite party No.1 has sold the genuine and original products of respondent no.2. All the after sales services will be provided by the manufacturing company i.e. the respondent no.2 as per their terms and condition through its authorized service centre i.e. respondent no.3. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3. Opposite party no. 2 appeared and submitted its reply that after the diagnosis of the subject phone on 31st March 2022 and 10th June 2022, no issues were found with the subject phone and the same was communicated to the complainant. It is denied that the OPs flatly refused to resolve the said issue and they kept the subject phone for half a day and returned it in the same condition without doing absolutely anything to resolve the issue. The opposite parties provided constant support and services to the complainant. It is further submitted that the request for removal of other Manufacturer’s screen guard was made in order to effectively carryout the diagnosis operation of the subject phone and is a standard practice followed before repairs and the same was informed to the complainant. Hence, opposite party No.2 is not liable to any alleged loss incurred by the complainant due to removal of such other manufacturer’s screen guard. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs. However, opposite party no.3 did not appear despite service and was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 17.11.2022 of this Commission.
4. Learned counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavits Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C7 and has closed his evidence on dated 28.03.2023. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 1 made a statement that reply already filed on behalf of opposite party No.1 be read in evidence and closed his evidence on 18.07.2023. Ld. counsel for the opposite party No. 2 has tendered affidavit Ex.DW1/A and close his evidence on 05.06.2023.
5. We have heard ld. counsel for the parties and have gone through the written submission of OP No.2 & material aspects of the case very carefully
6. In the present case as per the Invoice Ex.C1, complainant had purchased the mobile phone alongwith adapter on 23.02.2022 for a sum of Rs.74800/-. As per copy of service report Ex.C2 dated 31.03.2022, there was problem of “Device hanging, app auto crush issue, airdrop issue, normal external VMI passed internal not checked”. But as per the repair remarks, the phone was only restored and updated. As per service report dated 10.06.2022 Ex.C3 also, the complainant also contacted the opposite party No.3 for the “App crush issue” and this time also the phone was updated and restored. Complainant has also placed on record copy of call record Ex/C4 & Ex.C5 as per which complainant talked to the opposite party for 21 minutes, 19 minutes, 2 minutes and 9 minutes. As per Ex.C6 & Ex.C7 dated 04.09.2022 opposite party provided some information regarding back up of phone.
7. Hence from the documents placed on record by the complainant it is proved that every time when complainant contacted the service centre for the defect in the mobile in question, they only updated the device. Had there been no issue in the device, why the complainant talked to them repeatedly and why they replied on 04.11.2022. Meaning thereby, after updating the software by the opposite parties on 31.03.2022 and 10.06.2022, the problem could not be resolved and therefore, he again contacted the opposite parties in September 2022. But the problem in the mobile phone could not be removed by the opposite parties during warranty period. It is also observed that the Apple is a renowned company of such worldwide stature and the consumer purchases its costly products after impressing by its name and fame and for long time utilization of the same under the impression that the such costly products/mobiles etc. would be free from every defect and will give longtime results. But when such like companies do not redress the grievances/do not remove the defects of their product, the customers lose their faith in the company. Hence the act of opposite parties of not removing the defects of the mobile in question within warranty period amounts to deficiency in service and opposite party no.2 being the manufacturer is liable to refund the price of mobile after deducting the 15% depreciation on it i.e. to pay Rs.63580/-(Rs.74800/- less Rs.11220/-) to the complainant.
8. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party No.2 to refund the amount of Rs.63580/-(Rupees sixty three thousand five hundred and eighty only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e.06.09.2022 till its realization and shall also pay Rs.10000/-(Rupees ten thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision. However complainant is directed to hand over the mobile in question as well as charger to the opposite parties at the time of making payment by the opposite party No.2.
9. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
22.08.2023.
.....................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Tripti Pannu, Member
……………………………….
Vijender Singh, Member
