| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION PATIALA. Consumer Complaint No. 245 of 8.7.2019 Decided on: 20.7.2021 Bhavika Sharma, aged about 19 years d/o Sh.Brijesh Sharma r/o H.No.45, Gali No.5, Manjit Nagar, Patiala. …………...Complainant Versus - M/s Bhatia Mobile Hut, Lahori Gate, Near Bus Stand, Patiala through its Prop.
- Unicorn Infosolutions Pvt. Ltd., First Floor, Mittal Building, Bhupindra Road, Near Columbia Asia Hospital, Patiala-147001, Service Centre, through its Manager.
- Apple India Pvt. Ltd., 19 Floor, Concorde Tower-C,UB City No.24, Vittal Mallya Road, Bangalore-560001, through its General Manager.
…………Opposite Parties Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act. QUORUM Sh. Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President Sh.Y.S.Matta, Member ARGUED BY Sh.Alok Dewan,counsel for complainant. Opposite party No.1 ex-parte. Sh.Mukesh Singh, for OP No.2. Sh.Manpreet Sawhney,counsel for OP No.3 ORDER JASJIT SINGH BHINDER,PRESIDENT - This is the complaint filed by Bhavika Sharma (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against M/s Bhatia Mobile Hut and others (hereinafter referred to as the OP/s) under the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act)
- Briefly the case of the complainant is that she is a medical student and doing BDS at Laxmi Bai Dental College, Sirhind Road, Patiala and for her personal use she purchased iPhone 6S 32GB bearing IMEI No.355801080719166 from OP No.1 vide invoice dated 24.8.2018 for an amount of Rs.32500/-.It is averred that on 20.5.2019, when the said phone was on charging, the same became dead and she alongwith her father approached OP No.1 but OP No.1 did cooperate with the complainant and referred her to OP No.2 .The complainant approached OP No.2 who kept the phone with it but on 27.5.2019, OP No.2 also refused to repair the set and issued Job No.PTA4438921 and letter issued by OP No.3 having mentioned therein that “the reason we cannot repair your product is because it has extensive physical damage” and handed over the set on 3.6.2019 .There is thus deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs which caused mental agony and harassment to the complainant. Hence this complaint with the prayer to accept the same by giving directions to the OPs to refund the amount of Rs.32500/- i.e. cost of the iphone and also to pay Rs.20,000/- as damages and causing mental agony and harassment and also to pay further Rs.15000/-as costs of the litigation expenses.
- Notice of the complaint was duly issued to the OPs. OP No.2 appeared through its authorized representative and OP No.3 appeared through its counsel and both contested the complaint by filing written reply, whereas none appeared on behalf of OP No.1 and was accordingly proceeded against ex-parte.
- In the written statement filed by OP No.2 at the outset it denied all the contentions and averments made by the complainant and prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. Preliminary objections have also been raised to the extent that the complaint is malafide and devoid of any merit. It is also submitted that the complainant has purchased the Iphone in question and issues with regard to the phone have been raised .It is further submitted the OP tried to charge the unit of the iphone for more than 20- times with the help of good apple power adaptor boot user iphone but still not powering on.unable to run AST2.iphone passed in the HDI and ICC test.
- On merits also the OP reiterated the facts as raised in the preliminary objections, the repetition of which is not necessary for the sake of brevity. After denying all other averments the OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
- In the written reply filed by OP No.3, at the out set it has also submitted that the contentions and averments made by the complainant are incorrect. It is also submitted that OP No.3 is a world renowned market and innovation leader.
- Preliminary objections have been raised to the extent that the complaint is malafide and devoid of any merit. It is submitted that the complainant approached OP No.2 on 27.5.2019 with regard to some issues in the iphone, who has clearly written regarding the unit condition in the service report ‘cosmetic white spots on device. It has also written in the action taken column, “that device sent to repair center for further checking and Apple repair center team found unit inspection failed and requote for same under stock price but customer denied for paid replacement”. Thus the device of the iphone of the complainant had suffered extensive internal physical damage due to which it was not powering on. However, OP No.2 offered exchange of product on stock price which was denied by the complainant and the device was handed over to the complainant on 3.6.2019.
- On merit, the OP no.3 denied all other averments and prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
- In support of the complaint, the ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered in evidence Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C4 and closed the evidence.
- The representative of OP No.2 has tendered in evidence Ex.OPB affidavit of Sh.Mukesh Singh and closed the evidence.
- The ld. counsel for OP No.3 has tendered in evidence Ex.OPA affidavit of Priyesh Poovanna alongwith documents Exs.OP1 and OP2 and closed the evidence.
- We have heard the ld. counsel for the complainant, OP No.3 and also the representative of OP No.2, and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
- The ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant purchased iphone 6S 32GB bearing IMEI No.355801080719166 from the authorized dealer OP No.1 on 24.8.2018 for Rs.32500/-.The ld. counsel further argued that the warranty of the phone was of one year but on 20.5.2019 within the warranty period the phone all of sudden stopped charging.Thereafter the complainant alongwith his father approached OP No.1 then she went to OP No.2 who kept the phone with it.The ld. counsel further argued that on 27.5.2019 OP No.2 refused to repair the set and they also refused to refund the money. The ld. counsel further argued that the telephone became defective within warranty period and it was neither changed nor repaired and also not refunded the money, so the complaint be allowed.
- On the other hand, the representative of OP No.2 has argued that the complainant has physically damaged the set in question so she is not eligible for the refund.
- The ld. counsel for OP No.3 has argued that the complainant herself destroyed the set and device was sent for repair to Apple repair center and it was found that the device of the phone is suffered from extensive internal physical damage due to the fault of the complainant, so complaint be dismissed.
- To prove the case Ms Bhavika Sharma has tendered her affidavit,Ex.CA and she has deposed as per her complaint.Ex.C1 is the receipt of Bhatia Mobile Hut vide which the iphone 6S 32GB was purchased for Rs.32500/- and it has been mentioned that the warranty will be one year on the handset. Ex.C2 is the email of Apple Care Service in which it is mentioned that the technician inspected the product and found some issue in the product that was not mentioned in the original repair request, so it was declined.Ex.C3 is the record of OP No.2, Ex.C4 is also the record of OP No.2.So from the affidavit of the complainant and the documents placed on record, it is proved that complainant has purchased the iphone 6S 32GB on 24.8.2018 from Bhatia Mobile for Rs.32500/- and warranty was for one year..
- OP No.3 has tendered affidavit, Ex.OPA of Priyesh Poovanna who has deposed as per the written version and it is mentioned that damage caused by abuse, misuse, fire, liquid contact, earthquake or other external cause is not covered under warranty.
- Sh.Mukesh Singh tendered his affidavit, Ex.OPB on behalf of OP No.2 and he has deposed as per their written statement and this was filed on the same line as was filed by OP No.3.Ex.OP1 is one year warranty.
- As per the allegations the complainant purchased the set on 20.5.2018 and when the phone was on charge it became dead and complainant alongwith her father approached OP No.1 and it was sent to OP No.2.OP No.2 kept the set with them but on 27.5.2019, it also refused to repair the set or refund the amount. The set could not be repaired both by OP No.2&3 who have taken the plea that the phone was misused and was physically damaged by the complainant but there is no expert report filed by the Apple India Pvt. Ltd. who is a world biggest market producer to prove that the set was physically damaged by the complainant. So this evidence is totally missing on behalf of OPs No.2&3 that the phone was damaged due to mishandling by the complainant.
- Written arguments were also filed by OP No.3 and it is mentioned that as per warranty clause when the damage is caused by accident, abuse, misuse, fire, liquid contact, earthquake or other external cause, the warranty does not cover any external caused damaged to the device but this evidence is missing from the file.
- The OP No.2 is the service center of the Apple India Pvt. Ltd. and there was no report which can show that the phone was physically damaged by the complainant. So when there is no evidence on the file that the phone was physically damaged by the complainant and phone was within warranty was not repaired by OP No.2 for the reasons best known to them.
- So due to our above discussion primafacie case of the complainant has been proved by the complainant. So the complaint is allowed and OP No.3 is directed to refund the amount of Rs.32500/- to the complainant, the complainant shall return the phone to OP No.2 and OP No.2 shall intimate OP No.3 who shall pay the amount alongwith interest @6% per annum from 27.5.2019 when it was sent to OP No.2 for repair. The OP No.3 is also directed to pay Rs.5000/-as compensation and further Rs.5000/-as costs of litigation expenses.
Compliance of the order be made by theOPs within a period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this order. ANNOUNCED DATED:20.7.2021 Y.S.Matta Jasjit Singh Bhinder Member President | |
