Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/794/2016

Bhaskar Saklani - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Apple Inc, - Opp.Party(s)

J.S Thakur

26 May 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/794/2016
Date  of  Institution	:	12/09/2016
Date   of   Decision	:	26/05/2017

 

 

 

 

 

Bhaskar Saklani son of Late Sh. Pati Ram Saklani, C/o House No. 460, Sector 2, M.D.C., Panchkula (Haryana) – 134114.

……… Complainant.

 

Versus

 

1.   M/s Apple Inc., Infinite Loop, Cupertino, CA 95014, USA, through its Importer M/s Apple India Private Limited, 19^th Floor, Concorde Tower “C” UB City, No. 24, Vittal Mallya Road, Bangalore – 560001, Karnataka.

 

 

2.   M/s Apple India Private Limited (Importer), 19^th Floor, Concorde Tower “C” UB City, No. 24, Vittal Mallya Road, Bangalore – 560001, Karnataka.

 

 

3.   M/s Currents Technology Retail (India) Limited, (Retailer), SCO 36, Ground Floor, Sector 11, Panchkula – 134113.

 

 

4.   M/s Paramatrix Info Solution, (Service Centre), SCO 112-113, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh.

 

……. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:   SH. S.S. PANESAR             PRESIDENT

                   SMT.SURJEET KAUR             MEMBER

          SH. SURESH KUMAR SARDANA     MEMBER

 

 

For Complainant	:	Sh. J.S. Thakur, Advocate.
For OP No.1	:	Ex-parte
For OP NO.2	:	Sh. Rajesh Bhatia, Proxy Counsel for Sh. Deepak Jain, Advocate.
For OP No.3	:	Sh. Amit Malhotra, Authorised Representative.
For OP No.4	:	Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate.

 

PER SURJEET KAUR, MEMBER

 

          Put in brief, the facts of the case are that the Complainant purchased an Apple iphone 5S 16 GB SPACEGRE (for short hereinafter to be referred as ‘the mobile handset’) on 22.05.2016 from M/s Currents Technology Retail (India) Ltd. (for short hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Opposite Party No.3’). for a sum of Rs.25,200/- vide invoice Exhibit C-1. It has been alleged that within a period of two months of its purchase, the said mobile handset developed serious problems. Its screen started flickering, then a black spot appeared on the left hand side of the screen and the multi touch system thereof stopped working all of a sudden. Accordingly, the Complainant approached the Service Centre i.e. M/s Paramatrix Info Solution (for short hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Opposite Party No.4’) on 27.07.2016 vide Service Report Ex.C-2, but when they failed to either rectify the problem or to replace the device, terming it to be “pressure damage”, the Complainant got served a legal notice dated 05.08.2016 (Ex.C-3) upon the Opposite Parties, inter alia, demanding replacement of the defective phone or refund of the purchase price of the same, along with interest, but to no avail. When all the frantic efforts made by the Complainant, failed to fructify, as a measure of last resort, alleging that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties tantamount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the Complainant has filed the instant Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, seeking various reliefs. 

2.          Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case. However, nobody appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.1 despite service, therefore, it was proceeded ex-parte.

 

3.          Opposite Party No.2 resisted the complaint by filing its written reply, inter alia, pleading that the Complainant’s iPhone 5S was under warranty for a period of one year from the date of its purchase. The Complainant used excessive force on the touch screen of his iPhone and damaged it, thus rendering it out of warranty. Denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service on its part, Opposite Party No.2 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

 

4.          Opposite Party No.3 filed its separate version, inter alia, pleading that it is a mere Seller of the product and is neither the manufacturer of the iPhone in question or its accessories nor does it is responsible for any post sale services for the said iPhone. Denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service on its part, Opposite Party No.3 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

 

5.          Opposite Party No.4 in its reply while admitting the factual matrix of the case has pleaded that the warranty of the Complainant’s iPhone 5S was expired due to its mishandling. The device was put to Chat with Apple India (Manufacturer of the said iPhone) and the case was rejected vide case Id 5411014 by the Apple India. Pleading that there was no deficiency in service on its part, a prayer has been made by Opposite Party No.4 for dismissal of the complaint.

 

6.          Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record in support of their contentions.

 

7.          We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and have also perused the record.

 

8.          Pertinently, the Opposite Party No.1 chose not to appear before this Forum and was proceeded exparte vide order dated 09.12.2016. Therefore, the evidence produced by the complainant has gone unrebutted against it.

 

9.          The key controversy swirls around the short question, whether the Opposite Parties have abdicated their responsibility of repairing/replacing the iPhone whilst the same is still under warranty by terming it to be having “pressure damage”?

 

10.        Having bestowed our anxious consideration to the matter, we are of the opinion that in the light of the material on record, answer to the question posed has to be in the affirmative.

 

11.        The factum of the purchase of iPhone 5S by the Complainant on 22.05.2016 carrying a warranty of one year and reporting the defect in its touch screen to Opposite Party No.4 on 27.07.2016 (Ex.C-2) by the Complainant has not been disputed. It is the categorical plea of the Opposite Parties No.2 & 4 (Opposite Party No.1 - Manufacturer being ex-parte) that the Complainant used excessive force on the touch screen of his iPhone and damaged it, thus rendering it out of warranty. However, we are not impressed with the same, for the sole reason that it was the responsibility of the Opposite Party No.4 to examine the product, when the same was brought to it for repairs, which was out rightly returned by it to the Complainant on 27.07.2016 itself declaring that the product suffered from “pressure damage”. Needless to mention that the Opposite Party No.4, who is the authorized service provider, even did not bother to open the device, before coining the term “pressure damage”, especially when the iPhone is under warranty. At any rate, the Opposite Parties have failed to produce on record any expert opinion to prove the alleged “pressure damage”, in as much as, the Opposite Parties were supposed to place on record an affidavit of the concerned Engineer, who purportedly physically examined the iPhone in question and termed it to be having “pressure damage”. Hence, in the absence of any such proof, the version of the Opposite Parties in this regard is hollow and deserves no merit. Significantly, the Opposite Party No.3 held its nerve contending that it is a mere Seller of the product and is neither the manufacturer of the iPhone in question nor does it is responsible for any post sale services for the said iPhone. But, we are not convinced with the contention of the Opposite Party No.3 as it (Opposite Party No.3) cannot escape its liability by putting the entire blame on Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, in as much as, Opposite Party No.3 is also equally liable as the other Opposite Parties being the authorized retailer of the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 (manufacturer and importer). In this backdrop, the aforesaid act of Opposite Parties amounted to deficiency in service and their indulgence in unfair trade practice, which certainly has caused immense, mental and physical harassment to the complainant. Evidently, the Complainant had spent the money for the purchase of brand new iPhone to facilitate himself, but not for moving the Service Centre time and again and then this Forum for justice, in the absence of proper service provided by the Opposite Parties. We feel that only after getting exhausted of all his remedies, the Complainant took cudgels against the Opposite Parties by filing the present Complaint.

 

12.        In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Parties are found deficient in giving proper service to the complainant. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Parties, and the same is allowed, qua them. The Opposite Parties are, jointly and severally, directed:-

 

[a]  To refund Rs.25,200/- to the Complainant being the invoice price of the iPhone 5S 16 GB SPACEFRE. 

 

[b]  To pay Rs.10,000/- on account of deficiency in service and causing mental and physical harassment to the Complainant; 

 

[C] To pay Rs.7,000/- as costs of litigation;

 

 

13.        The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties; thereafter, they shall be liable for an interest @12% per annum on the amount mentioned in sub-para [a] & [b] above, apart from cost of litigation mentioned in sub-para [c] above from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid.

 

14.        The Complainant shall return the iPhone in in question along with its accessories to the Opposite Parties after the compliance of the order.

 

15.        Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

26^th May, 2017                                             

Sd/- 

(S.S. PANESAR)

       PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(SURJEET KAUR)

       MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)                                                                                                      MEMBER