Date of Filing : 19/01/2017
Order No. 11 dt. 25/01/2018
The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant purchased one IPHONE from o.p. no.2 at a price of Rs.21,900/-. Immediately after the purchase of the said mobile set the complainant found some inherent defects and the complainant went to authorized service centre and after examining the mobile set it was observed that the same was working properly. Thereafter the complainant returned to his home with the said phone. Subsequently it was noticed that the phone again ceased to work after a few hours on the same day. The complainant went at the authorized service centre again and requested for repairing of the same and the phone was returned to the complainant on 18.11.16 with the remarks ‘unauthorized modification has been done on the phone’. The complainant became shocked and bewildered as the mobile set was given earlier to the authorized service centre. Subsequently the complainant sent several e-mails to o.p. no.1 but no fruitful result was achieved, for which the complainant filed this case praying for direction upon the o.ps. for providing the new hand set of Apple make IPHONE and alternatively for refund of the amount paid by the complainant as well as compensation and litigation cost.
The o.p. nos.1 and 3 contested this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations of the complaint. In their w/v o.p. no.1 stated that the IPHONE sold in India by o.p. no.1 through their authorized dealers / resellers are known for their cutting edge technology and utmost customers’ satisfaction. Due to the said attribute the phone is one of the largest selling devices in the world and in India. The o.p. no.1 is the world renowned in the market and innovation leader. It was stated that it is an established position of law that consumers who destroy, damage or negligently handle a product are not eligible to claim any relief under the C.P. Act, 1986. When consumers cause damage to product by external factors which are not associated with the manufacture / inherent condition of the product and as such, acts are incomplete disregard to and in breach of warranty policies of manufacturers (in the instant case the Apple warranty) cannot claim relief under the C.P. Act. As per Apple’s published guidelines, if damage is caused by service including upgrades and expansion performed by anyone who is not representative of Apple or an Apple authorized service provider the Apple is not responsible for the damage caused to the said IPHONE. The complainant is well aware that it would be liable for an out of warranty service due to damage which was not attributable to o.p. no.1, but due to the actions / negligence of the complainant. Consequently as per the terms of the Apple warranty implicated and applicable in the present instance the complainant’s IPHONE was beyond repair and not covered / replaced under the Apple warranty. The service report produced by the complainant in his complaint clearly shows that the IPHONE diagnosed by o.p. no.3. The service report done during inspection of the complainant’s IPHONE clearly shows that the damage done. On the basis of the said fact o.p. no.1 stated that there is no cogent evidence that the said phone had any manufacturing defect and o.p. no.1 will be liable for any damage or the cost as claimed by the complainant.
In their w/v o.p. no.3 stated that the complainant visited the office of o.p. no.3 on 27.10.16 and reported that his IPHONE was not getting connected I-tunes logo. Since the complainant showed his urgency the representative of o.p. had to receive the phone for diagnosis without hardware, software, VMI and micro inspection. The said phone as successfully repaired and the complainant after making necessary inspection received the phone on 28.10.16 without raising any objection. The complainant again visited the o.p. no.3 on 31.10.16 and the complainant again showed his urgency in depositing the phone as a result the representative of o.p. no.3 had to receive the phone without hardware, software, VMI and micro inspection. However, at the time of making inspection of the phone the engineer of o.p. no.3 found that there was unauthorized modification in the said IPHONE as a screw was missing as display cowling connector clip. The fact of unauthorized modification was duly reported to Apple and some photographs of the said phone were taken by the representative of o.p. no.3. Thereafter as per the terms and conditions contained in the Apple warranty o.p. no.3 denied to render any service to the complainant and ultimately on 3.11.16 o.ps. returned the said phone to the complainant. From the petition of complaint it appears that the complainant at the initial stage handed over the phone to Ntional Radio Products for making necessary repairing of the phone and it appears that the said phone was returned to the complainant on 18.11.16 without any success. It has been damaged by the complainant himself that he had handed over the product to o.p. no.2, but o.p. no.2 is not at all an authorized service provider of Apple India Ltd. and accordingly the complainant will not be entitled to get any benefit of the Apple warranty. On the basis of the said fact o.p. no.3 prayed for dismissal of the case.
In spite of receipt of notice the o.p. no.2 did not contest this case by filing w/v and as such, the case has proceeded ex parte against the o.p. no.2.
On the basis of the pleadings of parties the following points are to be decided:
- Whether the complainant purchased the IPHONE from o.p. no.2?
- Whether during the warranty period the said phone became defective?
- Whether the complainant visited the authorized service centre after detection of the said defect?
- Was there any intervention of any unauthorized person in respect of the said phone during the warranty period?
- Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of o.ps.?
- Whether the complainant will be entitled to get the relief as prayed for?
Decision with reasons:
All the points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of facts.
Ld. lawyer for the complainant argued that the complainant purchased one IPHONE from o.p. no.2 at a price of Rs.21,900/-. Immediately after the purchase of the said mobile set the complainant found some inherent defects and the complainant went to authorized service centre and after examining the mobile set it was observed that the same was working properly. Thereafter the complainant returned to his home with the said phone. Subsequently it was noticed that the phone again ceased to work after a few hours on the same day. The complainant went at the authorized service centre again and requested for repairing of the same and the phone was returned to the complainant on 18.11.16 with the remarks ‘unauthorized modification has been done on the phone’. The complainant became shocked and bewildered as the mobile set was given earlier to the authorized service centre. Subsequently the complainant sent several e-mails to o.p. no.1 but no fruitful result was achieved, for which the complainant filed this case praying for direction upon the o.ps. for providing the new hand set of Apple make IPHONE and alternatively for refund of the amount paid by the complainant as well as compensation and litigation cost.
Ld. lawyer for the o.p. no.1 argued that the IPHONE sold in India by o.p. no.1 through their authorized dealers / resellers are known for their cutting edge technology and utmost customers’ satisfaction. Due to the said attribute the phone is one of the largest selling devices in the world and in India. The o.p. no.1 is the world renown market and innovation leader. It was stated that it is an established position of law that consumers who destroy, damage or negligently handle a product are not eligible to claim any relief under the C.P. Act, 1986. When consumers cause damage to product by external factors which are not associated with the manufacture / inherent condition of the product and as such, acts are incomplete disregard to and in breach of warranty policies of manufacturers (in the instant case the Apple warranty) cannot claim relief under the C.P. Act. As per Apple’s published guidelines, if damage is caused by service including upgrades and expansion performed by anyone who is not representative of Apple or an Apple authorized service provider the Apple is not responsible for the damage caused to the said IPHONE. The complainant is well aware that it would be liable for an out of warranty service due to damage which was not attributable to o.p. no.1, but due to the actions / negligence of the complainant. Consequently as per the terms of the Apple warranty implicated and applicable in the present instance the complainant’s IPHONE was beyond repair and not covered / replaced under the Apple warranty. The service report produced by the complainant in his complaint clearly shows that the IPHONE diagnosed by o.p. no.3. The service report done during inspection of the complainant’s IPHONE clearly shows that the damage done. On the basis of the said fact o.p. no.1 stated that there is no cogent evidence that the said phone had any manufacturing defect and o.p. no.1 will be liable for any damage or the cost as claimed by the complainant.
Ld. lawyer for the o.p. no.3 argued that the complainant visited the office of o.p. no.3 on 27.10.16 and reported that his IPHONE was not getting connected I-tunes logo. Since the complainant showed his urgency the representative of o.p. had to receive the phone for diagnosis without hardware, software, VMI and micro inspection. The said phone as successfully repaired and the complainant after making necessary inspection received the phone on 28.10.16 without raising any objection. The complainant again visited the o.p. no.3 on 31.10.16 and the complainant again showed his urgency in depositing the phone as a result the representative of o.p. no.3 had to receive the phone without hardware, software, VMI and micro inspection. However, at the time of making inspection of the phone the engineer of o.p. no.3 found that there was unauthorized modification in the said IPHONE as a screw was missing as display cowling connector clip. The fact of unauthorized modification was duly reported to Apple and some photographs of the said phone were taken by the representative of o.p. no.3. Thereafter as per the terms and conditions contained in the Apple warranty o.p. no.3 denied to render any service to the complainant and ultimately on 3.11.16 o.ps. returned the said phone to the complainant. From the petition of complaint it appears that the complainant at the initial stage handed over the phone to Ntional Radio Products for making necessary repairing of the phone and it appears that the said phone was returned to the complainant on 18.11.16 without any success. It has been damaged by the complainant himself that he had handed over the product to o.p. no.2, but o.p. no.2 is not at all an authorized service provider of Apple India Ltd. and accordingly the complainant will not be entitled to get any benefit of the Apple warranty. On the basis of the said fact o.p. no.3 prayed for dismissal of the case.
Considering the submissions of the respective parties it is an admitted fact that the complainant purchased the IPHONE from o.p. no.2. The complainant in the petition of complaint stated that immediately after the purchase of the said phone he found that the phone was not functioning properly and he rushed to authorized service centre. The o.p. no.3 after making necessary inspection returned the phone to the complainant, but subsequently again the complainant noticed that there was some defects and he again rushed to o.p. no.3 and the same was handed over to the complainant on 28.12.16. The complainant in order to prove the said fact produced the service challan. On perusal of the service challan it appears that the complainant expressed his dissatisfaction regarding the repairing of the said phone. It appears from the materials on record that the complainant visited the authorized service centre on numerous occasions and the authorized service centre refused to give any service to the complainant subsequently on the ground that some unauthorized intervention was made for which service centre is not liable for repairing of the mobile set and the same does not cover within the warranty period though the defect arose within the warranty period. The o.p. no.3 being the authorized service centre in order to evade their responsibility made false allegation against the complainant that the mobile set was handed over to o.p. no.2 and o.p. no.2 and due to the intervention of the o.p. 2 in the repairing of the said mobile set for which the defect arose and the legal right of the complainant could have the benefit of warranty was denied. The complainant in order to corroborate the said fact filed some documents and also adduced the evidence to that effect. But o.ps. in order to shirk off their responsibility made counter allegations against the complainant that the phone was tried to be repaired by any unauthorized person. Since from the materials on record it appears that the defect arose during the warranty period and the complainant was denied to provide the relief in spite of having warranty in respect of the said phone, therefore we hold that there was deficiency in service on the part of o.p. nos.1 and 3 and the complainant will be entitled to get the relief as prayed for. Thus all the points are disposed of accordingly.
Hence, ordered,
That the CC No.28/2017 is allowed on contest with cost against the o.p. nos.1 and 3 and dismissed ex parte without cost against the o.p. no.2. The o.p. nos.1 and 3 are jointly and/or severally directed to replace the IPHONE in question and alternatively to refund the value of the said phone amounting to Rs.21,900/- (Rupees twenty one thousand nine hundred) only to the complainant along with compensation of Rs.3000/- (Rupees three thousand) only for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand) only within 30 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 8% p.a. shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
