BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.
Dated this the 31st day of July 2018
Filed on : 14-12-2015
PRESENT:
Shri. Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.
Shri. Sheen Jose, Member.
Smt. Beena Kumari V.K. Member.
CC.No.813/2015
Between
Kevin Mathew, : Complainant
S/o. Mathew George, (By Adv. George Cherian Karippapa-
Nirappel house, rambil, HB-48, Panampilly Nagar,
13 A, Abad Marina Plaza, Kochi-682 036)
Near High Court of Kerala,
Marine Drive,
Ernakulam-682 018.
And
1. M/s. Apple India Pvt. Ltd., : Opposite parties
19th Floor, Concorde Tower C, (By Adv. Sreekala Krishnadas,
UB city, No. 24, Vittal Mallaya M/s. R&P Partners, 42/197-C, Valla-
road, Bangalore, Karnataka Mattom Building, Old Railway Station
State, Pin-560 001, Road, Kombara, Ernakulam-18)
rep. by its Managing Director.
2. M/s. F1 Info Solutions Pvt. Ltd.,
CC. 37/547 B, first floor,
Muttathil lane, Kadavanthra P.O.,
Kochi-682 020,
rep. by its Managing Director.
O R D E R
Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.
1. Complainant’s case
2. The complainant purchased an apple i-phone from Cochin on 11-11-2014 on payment of Rs. 51,500/-. It had a warranty of one year on 02-11-2015 , the complainant found a web like crack on the front glass of the mobile handset. The complainant took the mobile phone to the 2nd opposite party service, centre at Kadavanthra, immediately. The 2nd opposite party requested 15 days time for free replacement of the handset . When the complainant approached the 2nd opposite party on 20-11-2015. The 2nd opposite party demanded the copy of the original purchase bill and the warranty. It was handed over to the opposite party on 23-11-2015. On 09-12-2015 the complainant was sent back stating that as per the bill the warranty had expired on 10-11-2015 and free replacement was not possible. The complainant was also told that the front glass was not replaceable and a new phone could be provided on payment of Rs. 25,000/- after discount. When the complainant searched the official site of the 1st opposite party manufacturer the spares were available at Rs. 4,000/-. The mobile phone purchased by the complainant was having manufacturing defects. The complainant had suffered deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party . Hence the complaint.
2. The opposite party appeared pursuant to the notice and resisted the claim by filing a written version contending inter-alia as follows:
The complainant did not provide the IMEI or serial number of the i-phone 6 gold . The opposite party does not have the complainant’s details in the data base. Therefore the claim made by the complainant having Purchased the i-phone is doubtful. The warranty differs based on the status of the i-phone. The warranty is available only for the new phone. The front glass of the mobile phone could be broken only if it is dropped to the ground. The complainant never visited opposite party No. 2. The phone was produced after the period of warranty. The complainant did not ask for any service report. There was no` manufacturing defects for the phone and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
3. The evidence in this case consists of the proof affidavit filed by the complainant and Exbt. A1 on the side of the complainant. Opposite party did not adduce any evidence.
4. Following issues were settled for consideration.
i. Whether the complainant had proved that there was any
deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
ii. Reliefs and costs
5. Issue No i. Exbt. A1 dated 11-11-2014 is a bill issued by JP trades and agencies who are the dealers of Nokia phones. Exbt. A1 does not show that the i-phone sold to the complainant was a new one. Exbt. A1 bill is not seen to have been issued by a dealer of i-phone. The IMEI number of the phone is not seen noted in Exbt. A1. There is no evidence to prove that the complainant had produced the phone to the service provider within the warranty period. Barring Exbt. A1 there is no documentary evidence in this case. In the above circumstance, we find that the complainant had failed to prove any sort of deficiency on the part of the opposite party . The issue is therefore found against the complainant.
6. Issue No. ii. Having found issue No. i against the complainant, we find that the complaint is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 31st day of July 2018
Sd/-
Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.
Sd/-
Sheen Jose, Member.
Sd/-
Beena Kumari V.K., Member.
Forwarded/By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
Appendix
Complainant's Exhibits
Exbt. A1 : Copy of bill dt. 11-11-2014
Opposite party's exhibits: : Nil
Deposition
PW1 : Kevin Mathew
Copy of order despatched on :
By Post: By Hand:
