BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA
Consumer Complaint No. 244 of 2019
Date of Institution : 09.05.2019
Date of Decision : 01.10.2019
Sushant Mittal, aged 27 years, son of Shri Ghansham Dass Mittal, resident of Barnala Road, Sirsa, proprietor of Keshav Polypacks, Plot No.87, Industrial Area, Delhipul, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa (Haryana).
……Complainant.
Versus
- M/s Satyam Mobiles, Sadar Bazar, Sirsa through its Proprietor.
- iQor Global Services India Pvt. Ltd., Shop No.5, Ground Floor, Suncity Mall, Delhi Road, Hisar, through its Manager/ Incharge.
- Apple India Private Limited, 19 Floor, Concorde Tower C, UB City No.24, Vittal Mallya Road, Bangalore- 560 001, through its Manager.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI R.L. AHUJA…………. PRESIDENT
MRS. SUKHDEEP KAUR…….MEMBER.
Present: Sh. JBL Garg, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. A.S. Kalra, Advocate for opposite party No.3.
Opposite parties no.1 and 2 exparte.
ORDER
In brief, the case of complainant is that on 7.5.2018, the complainant purchased a brand new Apple I6 (32GB) mobile from op no.1 for a sum of Rs.24,500/- vide bill no.2873 dated 7.5.2018 with one year complete warranty. That in June, 2018, the above mobile developed defects i.e. phone stopped charging and defect of power on. The complainant visited op no.2 being authorized service centre of op no.3 and reported the defects therein, upon which op no.2 after inspection made some repairs and stated that now the same will work properly. It is further averred that again the same defect appeared in the mobile in November, 2018 and complainant again brought the mobile to op no.2 whereupon the op no.2 kept the mobile with it and issued a job card mentioning that “phone is not getting charged iphone is not charging and not power on”. The physical status of the phone was reported as normal scratch. However, from the perusal of job card dated 28.11.2018, it transpired to the complainant that it was earlier sold out on 20.4.2018, whereas the same was sold to the complainant on 7.5.2018, it means that on 7.5.2018 the said mobile was re-sold to the complainant. So, it is quite possible that a defective mobile was intentionally sold to the complainant by op no.1. It is further averred that on 21.1.2019, the op no.2 returned the said mobile to complainant vide delivery challan with the observation that whole unit requires exchange and is not eligible for warranty service as same is having physical damage. The complainant was quite surprised, shocked and astonished to see the reason for declining the service of said phone. From the job sheet as well as delivery challan, the physical status of mobile is reported as normal scratch and no physical damage has been reported thereon and it appears that totally false and baseless excuse has been taken for not repairing the mobile or said damage has been caused by op no.2 while opening the said mobile for which complainant is not at all liable. That now said mobile is lying in dead stop condition. The ops have been indulged in unfair trade practice and have committed gross deficiency in service towards the complainant. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite parties no.1 and 2 failed to appear before this Forum and were proceeded against exparte.
3. Op no.3 appeared and filed reply asserting therein that warranty clearly shows that the iphone will be rendered out of warranty if it is damaged. In the present case, the complainant has used the iphone negligently and damaged it, hence it cannot be served/ replaced under warranty. The complainant had approached the op no.2 on 6.12.2019 with regard to some alleged issues with his iphone 6. The op no.2 who is the authorized service provider inspected the said mobile. The op no.2 then sent the mobile to the repair center of op no.3, where it was found that it was bent and this was a damage determined on the device. Hence, it was rendered out of warranty. The complainant was informed that his iphone was out of warranty and could not be repaired under warranty. The op no.2 offered paid repair for the said iPhone, however, the complainant declined and took his mobile back on the same date. It is further submitted that liability of a manufacturer arises only when there is inherent defect in the product when the said product was manufactured and it is settled position of law that manufacturer cannot be made liable until it is proved by adducing expert evidence that there was any manufacturing defect and the present case is not related to any manufacturing defect. The op no.1 might have sold a used iphone and op no.3 will offer its warranty on its products as long as they are within the warranty period and not been violated. Remaining contents of the complaint are also denied.
4. Then the parties then led their respective evidence.
5. The complainant in order to prove his complaint has furnished his affidavit Ex.CW1/A in which he has deposed and reiterated all the averments made in his complaint. He has also furnished tax invoice Ex.C1, copy of delivery challan Ex.C2, copy of job sheet Ex.C3, copy of product service summary Ex.C4, legal notice Ex.C5 and postal receipts Ex.C6 to Ex.C8. On the other hand, op no.3 produced affidavit of Sh. Priyesh Poovanna, Country Legal Vounsel as Ex.R1 in which he has reiterated all the averments made in the reply. The op no.3 has also tendered copy of minutes of meeting Ex.R2, copy of warranty card Ex.R3, copies of photos Ex.R4 and copy of service call report Ex.R5.
6. It is undisputed fact between the parties that complainant purchased a Apple I6 iphone from op no.1 on 7.5.2018 for a sum of Rs.24,500/- vide invoice Ex.C1. As per allegations of complainant, in the month of June, 2018, the mobile developed defects of stopped charging and power on within period of warranty of one year and complaint was lodged with the op no.2 being authorized service centre of op no.3. Op no.2 after inspection made some repair in the mobile and stated that now same will work properly. However, as per further allegations of complainant again in November, 2018, he brought the said iphone to op no.2 with same defect who kept mobile with it and returned the same in the month of January, 2019 with delivery challan Ex.C2. It was transpired by op no.2 to the complainant that mobile was sold out on 20.4.2018 whereas same was sold out to the complainant on 7.5.2018. Though this allegation of unfair trade practice has been alleged by complainant, but however, complainant has not proved on record any such allegation by leading cogent and convincing evidence that mobile was sold on 20.4.2018 to someone else and same has been resold to complainant on 7.5.2018.
7. Though, op no.3 has denied claim of complainant on the ground that mobile is physically damaged as per version of op no.2, but however, perusal of the evidence of op no.3 reveals that op no.3 has not placed on record any affidavit of op no.2 nor any opinion of the expert except job card Ex.R5 has been placed on file and the job card Ex.R5 shows only normal scratch and it appears that op no.3 has failed to establish that mobile suffers from physical damage which debars the complainant to claim repair or replacement of the mobile under the warranty period. But it is proved fact on record that when complainant lodged complaint with ops, it was very much within warranty period as same was purchased on 7.5.2018 and he approached to the ops with defect in November, 2018. The ops no. 1 and 2 even did not bother to appear before this Forum and opted to be proceeded against exparte.
8. It is settled principle of law that it is legal obligation of the ops to provide after sale services to the consumers like complainant qua their product which they have sold to the consumers. As in the present case, it is legal obligation of the ops to provide after sale services to the complainant which they have not provided and same amounts to deficiency in service on the part of ops.
9. In view of the above, we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite parties to carry out necessary repairs in the mobile of the complainant even by replacing any part without any cost within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of mobile from the complainant and in case it is found that same is not repairable, then they are further directed to replace the mobile with a new one of same make and model without any cost within further period of 15 days and in case the mobile of the same make and model is not available, then the ops are directed to make refund of the amount of Rs.24,500/- i.e. sale price of the mobile to the complainant within said period, failing which the complainant will be entitled to interest @7% per annum from the date of order till actual payment. We further direct the ops to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as composite compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in open Forum. Member President,
Dated: 01.10.2019. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
