BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.111 of 2018
Date of Instt. 19.03.2018
Date of Decision: 10.02.2022
Varun Gandhi Son of Sh. Satpal Gandhi R/o H. No.176, Ashok Nagar, Jalandhar.
..........Complainant
Versus
1. Mobi Techno, Shop No.36, Shastri Nagar, Near Nakodar Road Jalandhar.
2. B2X Apple Authorized Service Center 182 R, Ground Floor, Business Bay,
Model Town, Jalandhar. Through its concerned Manager.
3. A. V. Tech Digital Equipment Pvt. Ltd., 19th Floor, Concorde Tower, UB City No.24 Vittal Malaya Road, Bangalore Karnataka, Through its concerned Manager.
….….. Opposite Parties
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)
Smt. Jyotsna (Member)
Present: Sh. Arun Gandhi, Adv. Counsel for the Complainant.
Sh. Rohan Bhalla, Adv. Counsel for OPs No.1 & 2.
Sh. Aditya Jain, Adv. Counsel for OP No.3.
Order
Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)
1. The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein he has alleged that he purchased Apple Iphone 7 matt black and Serial No.F17T7F07HG7F from the OP No.1 for a consideration price of Rs.50,000/-, vide invoice Bill No.914 dated 27.03.2017. That at the time of purchase of the said iPhone, the OP No.1 assured complainant that the iPhone was of good quality and no complaint has ever been received with regard to the said model and company. It was also told to the complainant that the service centre of the Apple iPhone is also situated in Jalandhar and in case of any complaint/fault the same will be dealt with without any charges within the warranty period of one year. That after the purchase of said iPhone, it was not functioning properly and the same used to switched off after some time and showing apple logo on the screen of phone and there was network problem and also charging problem in the said phone and complainant could not use the said phone. When the matter was taken up with the OP No.1 by complainant then he was asked to contact OP No.2 being authorized service centre Apple iPhone of OP No.3. That the complainant visited the OP No.2 during warranty period and handed over the iPhone for replacement/repair and OP No.2 took the custody of iPhone and assured the complainant that they rectify the problem and same was sorted out initially after repairing the iPhone within two hours without issuing any job card for repair. That after some time same defects was again occurred in the said phone and complainant again visited the OP No.2 and handed over the iPhone for replacement/repair, OP No.2 and again took the custody of the phone and took into his possession for some hours and after getting into necessary/technical measures, OP No.2 flatly refused to repair and replace the abovesaid iPhone by assigning and admitted that there is an internal problem, but which could not be rectify under apple warranty and demanded Rs.29,500/- more from complainant for the replacement of iPhone and when complainant showed his inability to pay the amount demanded by the OP No.2, he flatly refused to repair and replace the same. That the above said iPhone was repaired from time to time by the OP No.2 and no job card was issued in this regard to the complainant. Now OP No.2 on dated 22.01.2018 flatly refused to repair and replace the above said iPhone without any reasonable reason and the complainant has already spent huge amount at the time of purchase the premium iPhone and the said iPhone is under warranty, but OP No.2 is flatly refused to repair and replace the above said iPhone. That there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs No.1 to 3 due to delivery of defective mobile phones to the complainant and due to above said acts of the OPs, the complainant has suffered mental tension, harassment, pain and agony and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to replace the above said iPhone with better working phone or return/refund the amount of phone paid by the complainant at the time of purchase and further OPs be directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant and cost of present proceedings.
2. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs and accordingly, OP No.1 appeared and filed its separate written reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable and no cause of action arose to the complainant to file the present complaint against the answering OP. The answering OP is only the seller of the mobile in question and answering OP is not responsible to provide warranty to the complainant, as mentioned under the terms and conditions of the bill/cash memo and the company service centre is responsible to decide about warranty of the mobile of the complainant and the answering respondent is nothing to do with the present complaint. On merits, the factum in regard to purchase of the mobile by the complainant is admitted, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.
3. OP No.2 filed its separate written reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable and answering OP is not responsible to pay any claim as mobile phone is not covered under warranty when it was liquid damage. The complainant has concealed this fact that before coming to the answering OP the complainant got checked the same from other service centre on 08.06.2017 which also refused to repair the same as it was hit by liquid damage. So, when the mobile phone is not covered within warranty due to the reason that same is affected by liquid damage. It is also worthwhile to mention here that after inspecting the mobile, above said fact was informed by the complainant and the same is also mentioned in the service report dated 15.02.2018 and the complainant has concealed this material fact. On merits, the factum in regard to purchasing the mobile by the complainant is admitted and it is also admitted that the complainant visited the answering OP, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.
4. OP No.3 filed its separate reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the contentions, submissions and allegations in the complaint are incorrect, vexatious, misleading and denied expect which specifically admitted herein after. That the present complaint is a malafide one, devoid of merits and contradictory to the established principles of law. The instant complaint has been devised to mislead this Commission. It is further averred that it is a common market principle and also an established position of law that consumers who willfully destroy, damage or negligently handle a product are not eligible to claim any relief under the Act. It is further averred that the provisions and terms of the Apple Warranty specifically exclude damaged products which is the case in the present matter. The applicable warranty provisions/terms are that “It the Apple Product is still not functioning properly after making use of these resources, please contact an Apple representative or, if applicable, an Apple owned retail store or AASP, using the information provided below. An Apple representative or AASP will help determine whether your Apple Product requires service and, if it does, will inform you how Apple will provide it. When contacting Apple via telephone, other charges may apply depending on your location.” A perusal of the extract of the warranty above clearly shows that the alleged damage caused to the iPhone on account of the negligence misuse by the complainant will be rendered out of warranty and the said alleged damage is not attributable to OP No.3. On merits, the factum in regard to purchasing of the iPhone by the complainant from OP No.1 is admitted, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.
5. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of the complainant Ex.C-1/A alongwith documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-4 and closed the evidence.
6. In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the counsel for the OPs No.1 & 2 tendered into evidence affidavits Ex.OP1/A and Ex.OP2/A/1 alongwith documents i.e. copy of mobile Bill as Ex.OP1/1 and copy of service report as Ex.OP2/A, copy of delivery report as Ex.OP2/B and closed the evidence.
7. Counsel for the OP No.3 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.OP3/A alongwith some documents Ex.OP3/1 to Ex.OP3/24 and closed the evidence.
8. We have heard the argument from learned counsel for both the parties and have also gone through the case file very minutely.
9. The case of the complainant is that he purchased Apple iPhone 7 for Rs.50,000/- from OP No.1 on 27.03.2017. But after the purchase of the said iPhone, it was not functioning properly and the same used to remain switched off after some time and show apple logo on the screen of phone and there was network as well as charging problem in the said phone. The complainant approached the OP No.2 during warranty period and handed over the mobile for replacement/repair twice and OP No.2 kept the said mobile and assured the complainant that the phone will be repaired, but same defects again appeared despite repair.
10. The complainant has proved on record the bill Ex.C-1, Legal notice Ex.C-2, Ex.C-3 Online Warranty and Ex.C-4 Postal Receipts.
11. The contention of the OP No.1 is that the OP No.1 is only the seller of the mobile in question and OP No.1 is not responsible to provide warranty to the complainant, as mentioned under terms and conditions of the bill/cash memo and the company service centre is responsible to decide about warranty of the mobile of the complainant. The OP No.2 submitted that the mobile phone is not covered under warranty when it was liquid damage and the phone was affected by liquid damage, therefore, the same could not be repaired under warranty as the same is not covered under warranty.
12. The contention of the OP No.3 is that the liquid damage and unauthorized modification are strictly not covered under the warranty terms and conditions issued by the 3rd OP. The device has been tampered/modified as the home button was misplaced which resulted into third party modification which has led to these issues. The complainant has breached the warranty by negligently handling of the device by allowing water/liquid to enter into it and getting his device repaired by the third party who is not the authorized service provider of the OP No.3 and request has been made to dismiss the complaint.
13. It is proved on record by Ex.C-1 that the mobile handset i.e. iPhone 7 was purchased from OP No.1 on 27.03.2017. The other document Ex.C-3, wherein it is clearly mentioned that the estimated expiration date is 26.03.2018. As per Ex.OP2/A, the complainant approached the OP No.2 on 15.02.2018 within the warranty period. In Ex.OP2/A i.e. Service Report, the problem mentioned is as ‘Not Powering On’ and other problems are N-Repair in GSX states that the device is liquid damage and could not be covered under warranty. N Repair is created by some other AASP not B2X.
14. Apart from above, the mobile phone of the complainant was checked by the mechanic/service engineer of the OP as alleged by the OP in the service report Ex.OP2/A. In the column of Diagnosis Remarks, it is mentioned in Ex.OP2/A ‘No AST Run, No issue of date. If we find any unauthorisation in the Device we will return the device as it is and if we find any damage in device it will be treated as out of warranty’. This shows that there was any un-authorization in device or it was out of warranty. In Ex.OP2/B, it has been mentioned that there was liquid damage. Nothing has been proved by examining any expert to prove the authenticity of facts mentioned in Ex.OP2/A or Ex.OP2/B. This itself establishes that the plea taken by the OPs is not a correct one, rather the case of the complainant from the document is proved that the iPhone was having problem. So, from the overall circumstances, it is established that there is some manufacturing defect in the mobile and it occurred within warranty period and therefore, the complainant is entitled for the relief claimed.
15. In the light of above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant is partly allowed and Opposite Parties are directed either to replace the iPhone or to issue voucher of same amount mobile to the complainant. The Opposite Parties are further directed to pay a compensation of Rs.3000/- for causing mental tension, pain, agony, physical inconvenience and harassment to the complainant and the Opposite Parties are further directed to pay Rs.2000/- as litigation expenses. The entire compliance be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of order. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
16. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.
Dated Jyotsna Dr.Harveen Bhardwaj
10.02.2022 Member President
