Haryana

Karnal

CC/699/2021

Nisha Goyal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Invent Store - Opp.Party(s)

Pal Singh Chaudhary

15 Jan 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                        Complaint No. 699 of 2021

                                                        Date of instt. 15.12.2021

                                                        Date of Decision:15.01.2024

 

Nisha Goyal H.No.263, Gate No.1, BSNL Telephone Exchange, Sector-8, Urban Estate, Karnal, aged about 40 years.

 

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1.     Invent Store, Shop No.2, Dayal Tower, Commercial Complex, 390, Kunjpura Road, Karnal, through its owner.

2.     Apple Karnal Services Centre FF03, 3rd Floor, Super Mall, Sector-12, Karnal, through its owner.

3.     The Managing Director, Apple India Private Limited No.24, 19th Floor Concorde Tower-C, UB City, Vittal Mallya Road, Bangalore 560001.

                                                                      …..Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 as amended upto date.

 

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.

              Sh. Vineet Kaushik…….Member

      Dr. Suman Singh….…….Member

                   

 Argued by: Shri P.S. Chaudhary, counsel for complainant.

                    Shri Kanavdeep Singh, counsel for OP No.1.

Shri Dheeraj Sachdeva, counsel for the OPs no.2 & 3.

 

                    (Jaswant Singh President)

 

 

ORDER:   

                

                   The complainant has filed the present complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that complainant has purchased an Apple Iphone 12 pro from the OP No.1 on 04.1.2021, worth an amount of Rs.1,18,900/- vide invoice NO.T1/KR/2021/1069. After three months, said mobile started giving charging problem and backup and it was taking three hours to charge the phone upto 90% and the battery was draining within 2-3 hours without heavy usage. In order to remove the defect, complainant took her phone to the OP No.2 several times but every time the dealing person told that there is some software problem in the same but the said defect could not be removed. On 21.08.2021, the complainant submitted her phone to OP No.2 and the concerned official stated that same would be sent to OP No.3 but they returned the phone on 26.08.2021 and assured that the defect is removed but there was no improvement and problem was as it is. Hence, on 28.08.2021, complainant again approached the OP No.2 for repairing the charging defect permanently. This time they kept the phone with them and called the complainant after two days. When she went to OP No.2, they handed over the mobile phone to complainant by saying that they have changed the display of mobile phone. The complainant was surprised because there was no problem in the display, rather problem was in the charging, hence, there was no need to change the display. The complainant asked the OP No.2 that why they have changed the display without her consent but they gave no satisfactory reply. The complainant also asked them to provide the approval received from the company for changing the display of mobile phone but they refused to do so. However, they assured that they will send the said mobile phone at Bangluru Service Centre for getting the same repaired and it would take some time. There is manufacturing defect in the said mobile and is required to be replaced with new one with extended guarantee. When the complainant approached the OPs for replacing the same, they have postponed the matter on one pretext or the other. The complainant sent a registered notice to the OPs and the notice was duly received by the OPs but they did not bother to replace the mobile phone. Hence, prayed present complaint.  

2.             On notice, OPs appeared and filed their separate written version. OP No.1 in its written version has raised preliminary objections regarding concealment of true and material facts; maintainable; cause of action, etc. On merits, it is pleaded that OP No.1 is premium reseller of OP No.3. OP No.3 is manufacturing company and OP No.2 is authorized service centre of OP No.3. All after sales services will be provided by manufacturing company i.e. OP No.3 as per their terms and conditions through authorized service centre i.e. OP No.2.  There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             OPs No.2 & 3 filed their separate written version raising preliminary objections regarding concealment of true and material facts, malafide, etc. On merits, it is pleaded that complainant had purchased an Iphone 12 pro Silver 128 GB from the OP No.1. The complainant has alleged that she had some battery issues with her device. She approached apple authorized service provider i.e. OP No.2 on 21.08.2021. The said OP No.2 checked the device for the said issue, confirmed it and had its software updated and the device was working fine. Op No.2 checked  and confirmed there were some issues on its display, therefore, the display was replaced for free. After replacement of display, the iPhone was working fine and the complainant collected the said iPhone back on 21.09.2021. The complainant had verified and acknowledged that the said device was working fine, on the delivery report while receiving the iPhone back from OP No.2. There have been no other issues detected on the said device by any AASP on the said device. The complainant is aware that as per the terms and conditions of the warranty, the device will be served/ repaired or replaced, depending on the condition of the device. Whenever, the complainant has approached the AASP, she has received proper services. Besides, the issues mentioned above, there have been no other issues detected which warrant the replacement of the device. Despite being aware of the same, the complainant filed this complaint. Whenever, the complainant has approached the AASP, she has received proper services due to which he also extended her warranty. Besides the issues mentioned above, there have been no other issues detected which warrant the replacement of the device.  If the complainant had issues, she should have submitted her device again for the alleged issue. However, she has not submitted her mobile as there were no issues on it, this fact itself proves that the complainant is making false statements to support her case. The present complaint is not maintainable as there is no evidence to support her averments. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

5.             Learned counsel for complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A, copy of legal notice Ex.C1, copy of postal receipt Ex.C2, copy of account statement Ex.C3, copy of bill Ex.C4, copy of jobsheet Ex.C5, copy of service report Ex.C6 and closed the evidence on 26.01.2022 by suffering separate statement.

6.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP no.1 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Mandeep Phogat as Ex.OP1W/A, copy of invoice Ex.OP3 and closed the evidence on 18.09.2023 by suffering separate statement.

7.             Learned counsel for OPs No.2 & 3 tendered into evidence affidavit of Prateek Hiremath Ex.RW1/A and copy of letter of authorization Ex.OP1 and copy of warranty Ex.OP2 and closed evidence on 13.04.2023.

8.             We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

9.             Learned counsel for the complainant, while reiterating the contents of the complaint, has vehemently argued that, complainant purchased an Apple Iphone of the OPs’ company with the warranty of one year. After some time, the problem was occurred in the mobile. The complainant contacted the OPs for removal of defect or replacing the mobile set in question but OPs neither removed the defect nor replaced the same. The complainant is a highly educated lady and runs her coaching centre and she has no time to visit again and again to the OPs. He further argued that since the mobile phone of the complainant was not working properly and under the compelling circumstances, the complainant had to purchase new handset, therefore, prayed for refund of mobile in question and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

10.           Per contra, learned counsel for the OP no.1, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that OP No.1 is premium reseller of OP No.3. OP No.3 is manufacturing company and OP No.2 is authorized service centre of OP No.3. All after sales services will be provided by manufacturing company i.e. OP No.3 as per their terms and conditions through authorized service centre i.e. OP No.2 and lastly prayed for dismissal of complaint qua the OP No.1.

11.           Per-contra, learned counsel for OPs No.2 & 3, while reiterating the contents of the written version, has vehemently argued that complainant approached the OPs no.2 & 3. OP no.2 checked her device and replaced the display. After replacement of the display, the iphone was working properly and thereafter there was no other issue detected on the said device. There is no manufacturing defect in the device and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

12.           We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties.

13.           Admittedly, on 04.01.2021, complainant purchased the mobile set in question from the OP No.1 vide invoice Ex.C4 for an amount of Rs.1,18,900/-. It is also admitted that after three months of purchase i.e. during the warranty period, the mobile in question started giving charging and backup problem. It is also admitted that OP No.2 is service centre and OP No.3 is manufacturer of the mobile in question.

14.           After three months of purchase, the mobile in question started giving battery and backup problem. The battery was taking 3 hours to charge the phone upto 90 percent and battery was draining within 2-3 hours without heavy usage. The complainant visited the OP No.2 many times and they updated the software and told the complainant the charging problem is due to summer heat.  Undisputedly, OP No.2 has changed the display of the mobile phone despite removing the charging problem. The complainant also served a legal notice to the OPs but receiving the legal notice, no reply was given by the OPs. The complainant has placed on file repair acceptance form Ex.C5 and service report Ex.C6 with regard to defect in the mobile in question.

15.           The OPs have taken a plea that the complainant after checking the mobile set properly has received the handset from the OP No.2 and in this regard, she appended her signature. In this regard, we are of the considered view that it is routine practice of every service centre to obtain the signature of the customer. However, the mobile phone cannot be checked on the spot, rather after using for one or two days, it can be observed it is working properly or not. Hence, this plea of the OPs is having no force.

16.           The complainant has visited the OP No.2 for repairing her phone several times including 21.08.2021, 28.08.2021 21.09.2021, but despite that the OP No.2 did not remove the defect of the mobile in question and all the times handover the phone after updating the phone and once after replacing the display, without any reason and rhyme.  Moreover, the OPs have also not given any reply to the legal notice served upon them by the complainant. The complainant is highly educated lady being doctorate and is running a coaching centre. She cannot remain herself available 24X7 for repairing her mobile phone from the OPs. The OPs are misguiding to a highly educated lady and what about the common man. The replacing of display of the phone of the complainant shows that the OP No.2 checked the phone of the complainant in a very casual way and really they do not want to remove the actual defect of the handset. In this way, the complainant has suffered mental harassment on account of the act and conduct of the OPs.  

17.           In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered view that the mobile set in question was having a manufacturing defect and the OPs has failed to resolve the defect from the mobile in question. Hence, the act of the OPs no.2 & 3 amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

18.           As per the complainant, under the compelling circumstances, she has purchased a new mobile handset and now she has no need for replacing of mobile handset and prayed for refunding the cost of mobile handset. As per the invoice Ex.C4, the cost of mobile in question is Rs.1,18,900/-. Thus, the complainant is entitled for cost of mobile handset i.e. Rs.1,18,900/- alongwith, compensation for mental agony and harassment and litigation expenses.

19.           Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OPs no.2 & 3 (being service centre and manufacturer) to refund the cost of mobile phone i.e. Rs.1,18,900/-. We further direct the OPs no.2 & 3 to pay Rs.20,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by her and Rs.5500/- for the litigation expense. Complaint qua OP no.1 stands dismissed. The complainant is directed to handover the mobile set in question to the OPs No.2 & 3 on receipt of the awarded amount. This order shall be complied within 45 days from 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: 15.01.2024                                                                   

                                                                President,

                                                   District Consumer Disputes

                                                   Redressal Commission, Karnal.

       

 (Vineet Kaushik)           (Dr. Suman Singh)                     

    Member                           Member

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly 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.