Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 114
Instituted on : 28.02.2023
Decided on : 21.08.2023
Satish Chander Bangarwa S/o Sh. Rohtash Singh R/o H.No.63, Ward No. 3, Anant Puram Society, Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- M/s Mobile Shoppe, Shop No. 44, Opp. Durga Cable, Geeta Bhawan Chowk, Sonepat, through its Proprietor.
- Apple India Pvt. Ltd. No. 24, 19th Floor, Concorde Tower-C, UB City, Vittal Mallya Road, Banglore, through its Director. …….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 35 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,2019.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR.VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Y.S.Dalal, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Govind Hooda, Advocate for the opposite party No. 1.
Sh. Rajkumar Jangra, Advocate for opposite party no. 2.
ORDER
TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER:
1. Brief facts of the case as per complainant are that he purchased a new mobile phone make Apple Iphone 13 128 GB IMEI Nos. 352364224183685, 352364224133482 from opposite party no. 1 vide invoice No. 195 dated 20.04.2022 against payment of Rs.70,000/-. The opposite party no. 1 offered one year warranty for the said mobile phone. It is further submitted that at the time of sale of the said phone, opposite party no. 1 assured that the said mobile phone is manufactured by opposite party no. 2 which is an esteemed company in field of mobile phone and the company shall provide best services in case of any problem. After purchasing the said mobile phone, the complainant started using the phone but since about 5-6 months before filing of the present complaint, the said phone started creating problems of automatic On Off, hanging, laging and heating. Thereafter the complainant took the phone at the service centre of the opposite party no. 2 at Noida and Delhi for 4-5 times but of no avail. The complainant also contacted with the opposite party no. 2 through emails/chat but no response was given by them. The alleged phone is not working properly and having manufacturing defect. As such, there is deficiency on the part of the opposite party. Hence, this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to pay Rs.70,000/- cost of the alleged mobile phone alongwith interest @18% per annum from the date of purchase till actual realization to the complainant. It is also prayed that opposite parties be also directed to pay Rs.60,000/- as compensation and Rs.15,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant as explained in relief clause.
2. After registration of complaint, notices were issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party No. 1 in its reply submitted that he is only retailer and the said phone is manufactured by the opposite party no. 2. In case of any defect, the opposite party no. 2 is liable to provide services. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint qua the opposite party no. 1.
3. Opposite party no. 2 appeared and submitted its reply that there is no record of any visit of complainant in Apple Authorized Service Provider. It is also submitted that complainant has failed to put any document on record evidencing the alleged visit in the Apple Authorized Service Provider with respect to the alleged issues in the iPhone. No such email correspondences or calls were made to Apple Support team except the chat on 02.02.2023 wherein the complainant had raised the issue of alleged-(i) some apps are not working; (ii) screen goes black;(iii) devices gets hot while opening apps especially Whatsapp; and (iv) the iPhone restarts. It is stated that vide this call, the representative/agent of the opposite party no. 2 Mr. Jackilou, provided the complainant with proper support and offered to take him through troubleshooting steps and run troubleshooting steps on the iPhone, however the complainant had disconnected the chat. It is stated no further attempts were made by the complainant to raise these issues. It is specifically denied that there is any manufacturing defect in the iPhone for the reason that after having purchased the iPhone on 20.04.2022, the complainant had used the phone for almost 8 and a half months before the complainant reached out to the Apple Support of opposite party no. 2 with the alleged issues in the iPhone. It is stated that the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission held in the case Bhagwan Singh Vs. M/s R.K.Photostate & Communications & Ors., MANU/CF/0358/2017 that if the problems in the phone arise after more than 6 months of usage, it cannot be said that there were manufacturing defects in the phone. Therefore, having used the alleged phone for a considerable period of time, it is incorrect to state that there existed a “manufacturing defect” in the same. Further it is submitted that complainant has purchased the said phone on 20.04.2022 which came with a one year limited warranty due to expire on 19.04.2023. The complainant approached the opposite party no. 2 for the first time on 02.02.2023 with the alleged issues in the said phone wherein adequate support was provided to him. It is stated that complainant never approached the Apple Authorized Service Provider of the opposite party no. 2 in reference to the alleged issues in the alleged phone. The complainant has failed to place any document on record which proves such alleged visit to the Apple Authorized Service Provider by the complainant. It is also submitted that when the complainant approached the Apple support of opposite party no. 2 on 02.02.2023, he was offered support which he denied by disconnecting the chat. It is stated that complainant was not denied any support of opposite party no. 2 at any in time but the complainant himself refused the support offered by the representative of opposite party no. 2. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
4. Learned counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavits Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C6 and has closed his evidence on dated 29.05.2023. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 1 has tendered affidavit Ex. RW1/A, documents Ex.R1/1 and closed his evidence on 12.06.2023. Ld. counsel for the opposite party No. 2 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW2/A and close his evidence on 24.07.2023.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
6. In the present case as per the Invoice Ex.C1, complainant had purchased the mobile phone on 24.09.2021 for a sum of Rs.71900/-. As per copy of chat with one Jackilou representative of the company, placed on record as Ex.C2 to Ex.C5, complainant has told that his device was not working properly and there were problems of “apps not working, screen goes black while opening the apps, specially whatsapp, devices than gets hot, sometimes restart”. Complainant has also told that he visited the service centre in Noida but they denied to give service no solution as they did not entertain. Complainant also told multiple problems in the mobile. Then he replied that “I See, the device has many issues that we have to be patient in fixing it”. But despite that problems could not be resolved by the opposite parties.
7. Hence from the documents placed on record by the complainant it is proved that there are multiple issues in the alleged mobile and the complainant talked to the representative of the opposite party on 2.3.2023 for 16 minutes 49 second for the alleged issues but the defects could not be removed by the opposite parties during warranty period. It is also observed that the Apple is a renowned company of such worldwide stature and the consumer purchases its costly products after impressing by its name and fame and for long time utilization of the same under the impression that the such costly products/mobiles etc. would be free from every defect and will give longtime results. But when such like companies do not redress the grievances/do not remove the defects of their product, the customers lose their faith in the company. Hence the act of opposite parties of not removing the defects of the mobile in question within warranty period amounts to deficiency in service and opposite party no.2 being the manufacturer is liable to refund the price of mobile after deducting the 25% depreciation on it i.e. to pay Rs.52500/-(Rs.70000/- less Rs.17500/-) to the complainant.
8. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party No.2 to refund the amount of Rs.52500/-(Rupees fifty two thousand and five hundred only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e.28.02.2023 till its realization and shall also pay Rs.10000/-(Rupees ten thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision. However complainant is directed to hand over the mobile in question to the opposite parties at the time of making payment by the opposite party No.2.
9. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
21.08.2023.
.....................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Tripti Pannu, Member
……………………………….
Vijender Singh, Member
