Delhi

New Delhi

CC/15/2017

Yash Khanagwal - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Apple India Pvt Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

12 Mar 2020

ORDER

 

 

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

(DISTT. NEW DELHI),

‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN,

I.P.ESTATE, NEW DELHI-110002.

 

Case No.CC/15/2017                                        Dated:

           In the matter of:

Sh. Yash Khanagwal

S/o Late Sh. Narain Singh

R/o 5657/4, Gali Hanuman Mandir

Nabi Karim , Paharganj

New Delhi – 110055

                                                                                               ....COMPLAINANT

                                                            VERSUS

 

1.        APPLE INDIA PVT. LTD.

19^th Floor, Concorde Tower

C’ub City No. 24, Vittal Mallya Road,

Bangalore-560001, Karnataka

 

2.           M/s. INFI BEAM. COM.

At -  NSI INFINIUM GLOBAL PVT. LTD.

3^rd Floor, Trupathi Complex, #25

4^th Cross, Bangalore- 560094

Karnataka

Through it’s A.R. / Manager

 

3.        M/s FUTURE WORLD RETAIL PVT. LTD.

N-9, Outer Circle , Connaught Place

New Delhi-110001

Through its Proprietor                                      

………. OPPOSITE PARTIES

            ARUN KUMAR ARYA- PRESIDENT

ORDER

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint against the O.P. under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The facts as alleged in the complaint are that the complainant purchased an Apple iPhone 6  (Silver) (16 GB), EMI No. 355397073920531 for a sum of Rs. 37,777/- by way of credit card through the respondent no. 2 vide Bill/ Invoice No. BT-160716298005 dated 16/07/2016 vide order no. 18925617 with a warranty and assurance of being a genuine product  and good after sale service.
2. Thereafter, on 20/07/2016, the complainant received the abovesaid mobile handset and when the complainant opened the packing of the same but the mobile handset was opened with a written remark “HOLA” and being the same, the complainant again switched off the mobile but the same has not properly opened and was shown the cool down. The pass-code word was entered too after 30 minutes but this activate was not complete and it got stuck after putting pass-code.
3.  On 21/07/2016, the complainant contacted the service  center  of the OP-1 i.e. OP-3  regarding the said mobile but the OP-3  has remarks the reason  “ as per diagnosis it showing charging but not increasing  and not getting on. The device was handed over to customer without any micro inspection component check” but the officials of the OP-3 has not given the satisfactory  reply and issued  the service report dated 21/07/2016 to the complainant. On the same day, the complainant had emailed  the said copy to the  OP-2. Thereafter,  the OP-2  had sent a e-mail to the complainant on 02/08/2016 which was received by him and whereby the OP-2  had demanded to take the Dead on Arrival  Certificate  (DOA)  from the OP-3 which was denied by it. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs,  complainant prayed for a sum of the abovesaid mobile  set of Rs. 37,777/- , Rs. 1,00,000/-  as compensation/ damages and Rs. 50,000/- . Despite contacting the service center and other people, complainant could not  get relief, hence this complaint.
4. The OPs were noticed and filed written statements/ versions denying all allegations. It is stated by OP-1 that iPhone is one of the largest selling mobile phone all over the world. The purchaser complained of some alleged charging issue and the device was inspected by the OP-3 and the certificate was issued that the mobile set was found dead on arrival. As this information was not given into two days and the company was not liable to pay the same.
5. OP-2 is the online seller of branded, non-branded or manugactured products through its website Infibeam.com on “AS IS” (“AS IS” Basis means without warranties of any kind, either express or implied). It is stated that OP-2 does not bear any responsibility of accuracy, operative and functionality as the warranty and guarantee on the said product was ensured by the manufacturer. 
6. OP-3 had also admitted that the complainant’s phone has some hardware issue with respect to the charging of the phone set and the same was mentioned in the service report.  The complainant did not want any service s and repairs as offered by the OP-3 and was again and again asking for the Dead on Arrival Certificate. OP-3 further offered repair services and also offered to swap the phone for which the complainant refused to. As per the document of the OP-3, the mobile set was found Dead On Arrival.
7. The Complainant, OP-1 and OP-3  filed their evidence by way of affidavit. Oral arguments  were also addressed.
8. OP-1 is big Company and boast of its phones i.e. these are very good quality. This is a phone which did not switch off after purchase. Instead of purchasing the mobile immediately, it dragged to this complaint to Forum and litigation. It is a clear case of deficiency on the part of OPs as the mobile set was found Dead on Arrival. We direct as under:-

1. OP-1 to pay the amount of mobile set of Rs. 37,777/-to the complainant and Complainant is also directed to refund the Dead on Arrival mobile phone to OP-1.
2. Litigation cost of Rs. 10,000/- including mental agony and harassment.   

The Orders shall be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.

Copy of the order may be forwarded to the parties to the case free of cost as statutorily required. 

Announced in open Forum on:

The orders be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in

File be consigned to record room.

 

 

 

                                                (ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

                                                                    PRESIDENT

 

             (NIPUR CHANDNA)                                                               (HM VYAS)

             MEMBER                                                                           MEMBER