DATE OF FILING :20/10/17 

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES  REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 28th day of September 2018

Present :

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR PRESIDENT

           SRI. BENNY. K. MEMBER

CC NO. 220/2017

Between

Complainant       :  Jimmy Kurian, 

                                                                            Vadakkel House,

                                                                            Rajakkadu P.O., Rajakkadu Kara,

                                                                            Idukki District.

(By Adv: Lissy M.M.)

And

Opposite Party                                   : 1 . Apple India Pvt. Ltd.,

                                                                     19th Floor, Concode Tower C UB Cuty No.24, 

                                                                     Vittol Mallya Road Bangalore – 560 001, India, 

                                                                      Represented by its Managing Director.

                                                                     (By Adv:  Anish George)

                                                                 2 . Ajes Ignatious,

                                                                       Vallopparambil House, 

                                                                       Rajakkadu P.O., Mullakkanam,

                                                                       Proprietor, Online Stores, Rajakkadu.

 

O R D E R

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR (PRESIDENT)

 

The case  of the complainant is that,  

 

Complainant  purchased a mobile phone from the second opposite party shop manufactured by the first opposite party Apple India Ltd., having IMEI  No.352085076440903 by paying an amount of Rs.27995/- plus Rs.700/- as service charge of the second opposite party, on 09/03/16.  After 8 months of purchase the phone showed complaint of switch off automatically. Immediately complainant entrusted the phone to the second opposite party, and he send the mobile for repair to service centre and cured the defect by reinstalling the software of the phone.  Again the problem repeated after 3 months of this, and again the complainant approached the second opposite party with this defective phone and intimated the matter.  At that time the second opposite party neither cared to hear the complainant nor accepted the

                                                                                                                          (Cont.....2)

-2-

phone, and was reluctant to cure the defect of the phone. On enquiry the complainant came to know that, the second opposite party is not an authorised agent of the first opposite party. He purchased damaged refurbished phone from online trading site to which the first opposite party sold.  This phones are second grade products and the same was sold to the complainant at a very high price as same as a brand new one.

 

Complainant further stated that the selling such type defective phone as new one, is a gross deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice, and the phone developed complaint within one year from the date of purchase, and the phone is having warranty for one year from the date of purchase.  Due to the defect in the phone, the complainant could not use the phone and the first opposite party are not willing to repair or replace it.

 

Hence through the complaint, complainant prayed for getting relief such as to direct the opposite parties to replace the phone with a new one of same model and also direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.1 Lakh as compensation and Rs.5000/- as cost.

 

Upon notice the first opposite party entered appearance and filed detailed reply version.  Even after the acceptance of notice, the second opposite party not turned up to appear before the Forum, and filed reply version.  Hence the second opposite party set expartie.

 

In their written version the first opposite party contented that the first opposite party sells only i phones  through its authorised re-sellers in India. I phone goes through strict quality test as well as it goes through re-test procedure when is is imported to India.  It is irrelevant alleging i phone refurbish.  Hence on this ground itself complaint is liable to be dismissed.  The second opposite party is not an authorised dealer reseller of the first opposite party, the AASP(Apple Authorised Service Provider) has never received any service regarding software issue and it is irrelevant to allege the first opposite party for importing refurbished i phone, till today there has never been any sort of fault as mentioned in the complaint.  Apple provides one year limited warranty subject to provisions mentioned therein.  Hence the first opposite party is not liable for any compensation/replacement/repair to the complainant.  The first opposite party further contented that, the first opposite

                                                                                                                           (Cont.....3)

-3-

party has never imported refurbished or damaged products. On these ground itself the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

 

Evidence adduced by the complainant by way of proof affidavit and documents.  Complainant was examined as PW1 and Ext.P1 cash bill issued by the first opposite party dated 09/03/16 is marked.  No evidence was adduced by the opposite parties either orally or documentarily.

 

Heard both sides,

 

The point that arose for consideration is whether there is any deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ?

 

The Point:- We have examined the material on record and gone through the pleadings and written version.  It is an admitted fact that on 09/03/16 complainant purchased an Apple i phone mobile hand set from the second opposite party shop by paying an amount of 28695/- including service charge of the second opposite party.  It is evident from Ext.P1 cash bill.  The further contention of the complainant that, he entrusted the phone for curing defect within 8 months of its purchase, and again he approached the second opposite party for further rectification of the phone and its denial is not denied by the second opposite party.  The further allegation of the complainant against the second opposite party that, the second opposite party selling second grade refurbished phone by receiving the price of original i phone also not denied by the second opposite party.

 

At the same time the first opposite party raised their contention that the second opposite party is not an authorised seller or dealer of Apple i Phone.  More over AASP (Apple Authorised Service Provider) has never received such a phone having IMEI number mentioned in the complaint for repair.  Hence the first opposite party is not liable for any sort of fault mentioned in the complaint.  The contention of this opposite party is also not denied by the second opposite party.

 

Even though the acceptance of the process from the office, including the copy of the complaint,  the  second  opposite  party  neglected to answer it,  or

                                                                                                                          (Cont.....4)

-4-

appear before this Forum.  Hence the Forum is of a considered view that, in this transaction the first opposite party  has no role, and the whole liability is upon opposite party alone.  The second opposite party is answerable all the allegation in the complaint.  But the second opposite party never reacted and kept mum.  Hence Forum finds gross deficiency in service on the part of the first opposite party.  Under the above mentioned circumstances, Forum directs the second opposite party to repair the mobile phone in question to the satisfaction of the complainant with an extented warranty one more year or else return  an amount of Rs.28695/- as per Ext.P1, to the complainant, along with Rs.5000/- as litigation cost within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which this amount shall carry 12% interest per annum from the date of default  till the realization. 

 

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 28th day of September, 2018.

 

                                                                                                    Sd/-

                                                                                      SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR (PRESIDENT)

                                                                                                           Sd/-                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 

             SRI. BENNY. K.  (MEMBER)

 

APPENDIX

 

Depositions :

On the side of the Complainant :

PW1               - Jimmy Kurian

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Nil

Exhibits :

On the side of the Complainant :

Ext.P1       - Cash bill issued by the first opposite party dated 09/03/16  

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Nil.

 

    Forwarded by Order,

 

 

         SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT