District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.
Consumer Complaint No. 530/2022.
Date of Institution: 29.09.2022.
Date of Order:24.04.2023.
Jaswant Singh Rathor, aged about 24 years, son of Sh. Begraj Singh Rathor R/o House No. 1483, Gali No.6, F-Block, Bharat Colony,Faridabad, Haryana.
…..Complainant….
Versus
1. M/s. Rastogi Mobile Palace,383, Jawahar Colony, Gurudwara Road, Opposite Gurudwara, NIT Faridabad, Haryana-121005
2. I Delta Service, Faridabad through its Manager, Ground Floor, SCO-14, Near Green Channel Restaurant, HUDA Market/Shopping Centre Sector-16, Faridabad, Haryana-121002.
3. Apple Corporate Office, Vasant Nagar, Bengaluru, Karnataka-560001 through its Authorized representative.
…Opposite parties
Complaint under section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Now amended Section 34 of Consumer protection Act 2019.
BEFORE: Amit Arora……………..President
Mukesh Sharma…………Member.
Indira Bhadana………….Member.
PRESENT: Sh. Rishipal Sharma , counsel for the complainant.
Opposite party No.1 ex-parte vide order date 18.01.2023.
Opposite party No.2 exparte vide order dated 18.10.2022.
Sh. Anu Bagai,, counsel for opposite party.No.3.
ORDER:
The facts in brief of the complaint are that the complainant had purchased mobile phone (I Phone 13, 128 GB Starlight IMEI No.356557844871201) of Rs.70,000/- through the opposite party no. I through Invoice No. P190, dated 10.05.2022. After purchase of I-Phone the complainant noted that there was a gap in the display and chrome body, which was a manufacturing defect, regarding which the complainant visited to the respondents no. 1 & 2 and the respondents assured the complainant that the gap was not large and they would try their best to replace the same. After the verbal assurance, the complainant was not satisfied with their reply and the complainant made a call to the customer care support on 21.07.2022 and their customer care executive provided a consumer complaint No. 3704129 and assured to bring the issue in the knowledge of their engineers and contact the complainant soon. After telephonic conversation for 2-3 days they advised to contact the service centre (the respondent no.2) by providing complaint no. 3704129. The complainant approached to the opposite party no.2 on 26.07.2022 by issue of gap in display and front mic not working, which was mentioned in the column of issue reported by customer in a job card issued by the respondent no.2 and assurance made by the party no.2 to the complainant to resolve the issue in one week. Neither the issue was resolved nor the same be given in one week. The opposite party no.2 conveyed the issue to the respondent no3 and shipped the I-Phone to the respondent no.3 two times at Bengaluru. The complainant visited to the office on 11.08.2022, where the respondents returned the I-phone to the complainant by stating a reason given by the respondent no.3 of "cosmetic damage". The complainant also sent the videos and photos of gap to their e-mail as per the job card it clearly seems that there was not a 5single scratch or dent on the body of 1 Phone, which clearly shows that the gap was due to manufacturing defect. The complainant sent legal notice to the opposite parties through registered post but all in vain. The aforesaid act of opposite party amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint. The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite parties to:
a). replace the mobile phone (I Phone 13, 128 GB Starlight IMEI No.356557844871201) with new one to the complainant.
b) pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .
c) pay Rs. 35,000 /-as litigation expenses.
2. Notice issued to opposite party No.1 on dated 6.12.2022 not received back either served or unsrved. Tracking details filed in which it has been mentioned that “item delivery confirmed”. Mandatory period of 30 days expired. Hence, opposite party No.1 was hereby proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 18.01.2023.
3. Notice issued to opposite party No.2 received back with the report of “refusal”. Case called several times since morning, but none appared on behalf of opposite party No.2 therefore, opposite party No.2 was hereby proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 18.10.2022.
4. Opposite party No.3 put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite party No.3 refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that the OPs have represented that the Subject IPhone was sealed air tight and despite such representation, there was a slight paper thin gap in the Subject iPhone. It was to be noted that the Subject iPhone was not made up of a single part, but rather comprises number of parts which were sealed together to make the phone The Complainant was trying to insert paper thin material between different components and on such basis is alleging that there was a gap in the Butt iPhone The Complainant filed the present complaint with a malafide intention to unduly enrich and benefit himself under the garb of being a bona fide "consumer" by filing this bogus complaint despite being aware of the fact that there is no gap in the Subject iPhone. It was submitted that when the Complainant approached OP 2 on 26.07.2022, the Complainant alleged two issues (i) problem in front mike; and (ii) the alleged issue of gap in the Subject iPhone. It was submitted that the mike-related problem was covered under warranty and was fixed as per the Warranty, and this was evident by the job sheet of 02.08.2022, where the Complainant had not reported any issue related to the front mike of the Subject iPhone. It was submitted that the OP 3 thoroughly checked the Subject iPhone and since no issues were found with the same, it was returned to the OP2 on 30th July, 2022.. The Complainant thereafter submitted the device again on 02.08.2022 alleging that there was a gap in the display and body of the Subject Phone. It was submitted that the allegation was blatantly false and there was no gap in the Subject Phone. The Complainant had not adduced any proof to establish such gap. That as it may, upon submission of the Subject Phone, the same was once again checked by the highly competent team of OP3 and once again no issues were found with the said phone and same was shipped back on 6 August 2022. It was submitted that when the Subject Phone was deposited, it the issue of there being a gap wan cross verified, by replacing the existing display with a new display. Even upon such replacement, the Subject iPhone was working in the exactly same way as it was before the replacement. There was no gap in between the display and the body of the phone. Thus, the original display was put back and the Subject iPhone was returned to the customer. For the purpose of avoidance of doubt, it was reiterated that even with the original display, there was no gap in the phone between the display and body of the Subject iPhone. The complainant was erroneously referring to the design of the Subject Phone as a gap between display and the body of Subject iPhone. Therefore, it was determined that the Subject iPhone was not having any functional defects and there was no gap in the phone as alleged. It was submitted that in accordance with the terms of Warranty, the Subject Phone was diagnosed and complete repair services were rendered. Therefore, there was no deficiency of services on part of OP 2 and OP 3. It was to be noted that the Subject iPhone was not made up of a single part, but rather comprises of a number of parts which were sealed together to make the phone functional. The Complainant was trying to insert paper thin material between different components and on such basis as alleging that there was a gap in the Subject iPhone. Opposite party No.3 denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5. The parties led evidence in support of their respective versions.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.
7. In this case the complaint was filed by the complainant against opposite parties–M/s.Rastogi Mobile Palace with the prayer to: a). replace the mobile phone (I Phone 13, 128 GB Starlight IMEI No.356557844871201) with new one to the complainant. b) pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment . c) pay Rs. 35,000 /-as litigation expenses.
To establish his case the complainant has led in his evidence, Ex.CW1/A – Jaswant Singh Rathore, Ex.C-2(colly) – legal notice,, Ex.C3 to 5 – legal notices, Ex.C-6 – tax invoice, Ex.C-7 -Service Record, Ex.C-8 - Service details, Ex.C-9(colly) – Repair status, Ex.C-10(colly) – emails, Ex.C-11 & 12 – photographs.
On the other hand counsel for the opposite party No.3 strongly agitated and opposed. As per the evidence of the opposite party No.3 Ex.DW2/A – affidavit of Samdeep Karmakar,, Ex.DW3/1 – minutes of meeting,, Ex.DW3/2. –warranty.
8. In this case, the complaint was filed by the complainant with the prayer to replace the mobile phone (I Phone 13, 128 GB Starlight IMEI No.356557844871201) with new one to the complainant.
9. After going through the video shown by the counsel for the opposite party, it is hard to insert piece of paper in the mobile phone. Although there is groove in the phone on the edge of glass. Hence, there is no manufacturing defect in the mobile phone in question. Resultantly, the complaint is dismissed. Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced on: 24.04.2023 (Amit Arora)
President
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Mukesh Sharma)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Indira Bhadana)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
