Delhi

New Delhi

CC/59/2019

PARVINDRA NAUTIYAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. APPLE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED. - Opp.Party(s)

16 Feb 2023

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, VI,

DISTT.NEW DELHI, M-BLOCK, VIKAS BHAWAN, NEW DELHI-110002.

 

CC/59/2019

 

IN THE MATTER OF:

 

PARVINDRA NAUTIAL

S/O VIRENDRA NAUTIAL

R/O 616/3, BLOCK NO.1, DEV NAGAR,

NEAR RATIWALA PIYAU, KAROL BAGH,

NEW DELHI-110005

                                                                                COMPLAINANT

 

VERSUS

1. CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR,

APPLE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED

19^TH FLOOR, CONCORDE TOWER C,

UB CITY NO.24,

VITTAL MALYA ROAD,

BANGALORE-560001, (INDIA).

 

2. CHAIRMAN & MANGAING DIRECTOR,

          FUTUREWORLD RETAIL PVT. LTD.

          N-9, OUTER CIRCLECONNAUGHT PLACE,

            NEW DELHI-110001                                                          OPPOSITY PARTIES                                                         

Quorum:

         Ms. Poonam Chaudhry, President

          Mr. Bariq Ahmad, Member

          Mr. Shekhar Chandra, Member

                                                                   Dated of Institution: 21.02.2019

                                                                   Date of Order         : 16.02.2023

O R D E R

BARIQ AHMAD, MEMBER

1. The present complaint has been filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 hereinafter referred to as the CP Act. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the complainant purchase an Apple i-phone 6 in Gold variant bearing product serial/IMEI No.359220079468634 manufactured by opposite party No.1 through opposite party No.2, vide Invoice No. HO-436/2018-19 dated 20.07.2018 by paying Rs.24,500/- with one year guarantee/warranty from the date of its purchased. The said mobile handset started showing hanging issues after around just 2 weeks of purchased. The complainant alleged that he had been keeping the i-phone in good condition and had been using the same carefully and cautiously. On 30 October 2018 the complainant deposited the said mobile phone in question with opposite party No.2 i.e. Service Centre of opposite party No.1 through Job sheet No. CPN-150170 dated 30.10.2018 and the same was reported with the inspection on 05.11.2018 after 5 days of the submission. After checking, the said mobile phone was returned to the complainant claiming that damage had occurred, which could not be repaired under warranty. For repair, demand of Rs.27,000/- was made. Despite repeated requests, the mobile phone has neither been repaired nor replaced nor the price of the same has been refunded. As such, final notice dated 05.01.2019 was served upon opposite parties through e-mail but no reply thereto has been received.  The OP stated that mobile device is bent which cannot be covered under warranty as per Apple policy and norms.  It can only be replaced under the exchange price with an amount of Rs.27,000/-Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, the present complaint was filed by the complainant. Hence, the complainant has filed the present complaint. It is prayed that OP be directed to refund the amount charged for the mobile handset, to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards mental harassment and Rs.2,000/-litigation charges.
2. Upon Notice, OP No.1 & 2 appeared and contested the case. Written statement were filed taking certain preliminary objections therein inter alia that the complaint is misconceived.
3. Opposite party No.1 in its reply alleged that the complaint has been filed with mala fide intention, which is devoid of merits, as a consumer, who willfully destroy, damage or negligently handle the product, are not eligible to claim relief under the C.P. Act and in case damage to the product caused by external factors, then benefit of warranty clauses is not available. So far as the purchase of the mobile phone is concerned, the same was admitted. Rather it is claimed that opposite party No.2, the Service Centre of opposite party No.1, made diligent efforts for diagnosing the problem, when the mobile phone was brought to it on 16.08.2018. Opposite party No.2 after thorough technical analysis and visual mechanical inspection found that there are scratches, dents slightly. Opposite Party No.2 found that all that occurred due to pressure damage with the display. Services were offered to be provided on payment basis because the loss occurred due to pressure damage and claim was not covered under the warranty clauses.
4. Complainant alleged that it was a manufacturing defect, the mobile hand set was under warranty and such no amount was charged from the complanadine by the OP`s for any kind of replacement/repair. It was admitted by the OP`s that the complainant had deposited the mobile phone with opposite party No.2 on 16.08.2018 and the replaced under exchanged of the mobile phone amounting to Rs.27,000/- was also admitted. Thus, the damage to the mobile phone was not covered under the warranty clause. A prayer for dismissal of the complaint qua it has been made.
5. Defence of opposite party No.2: Opposite party No.2 filed  separate reply almost on the identical lines as has been filed by opposite party No.1. Opposite party No.2 stated that it has authorized service center of the mobile set and the defects and other liabilities are of the manufacturer. Damage to the product had been caused due to illegal act of the complainant. Denying all other allegations made in the complaint, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
6. In his bid to prove the case both the parties tendered into evidence affidavit.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the records of the case.
8. Learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently contended that Ex.C-1 and Ex.OP-1 is one and the same document i.e. Service Job sheet/service Delivery Challan. In this document  (EX-C-1)  reason/cause of damage has not been mentioned and the hand set is in warranty period.  Due service was not provided by the Service Centre. It is alleged that opposite party No.2 had discussed the problem with him and it was specifically stated that it was a case of pressure damage and due to pressure display screen damaged and turned half black. It has further been contended that since the i-phone is under the warranty period, therefore, the same should be replaced or repaired free of cost by the opposite parties.
9. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party No.1 has vehemently contended that damage was on account of external cause and the warranty is not applicable to the damage caused by accident, abuse, misuse, fire, earthquake or other external cause. Exerting of pressure on the mobile certainly falls in the category of damage on account of external cause. Therefore, the complainant is not entitled to free repair in view of putting of pressure on the mobile phone. He prayed that there is no merit in the present appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed.
10. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties.  On 30.10.2018 the complainant deposited the said mobile phone in question with opposite party No.2 i.e. Service Centre of opposite party No.1 through Job sheet No. CPN-150170 dated 30.10.2018 and the same was reported with the inspection on 05.11.2018 after 5 days of the submission. There was a lag in the services provided by the OP`s, moreover, it is clear from the Job sheet of the subject hand set that against the column "Problem Reported by customer" in Service report, Ex.C-1 (page No.12 of the complainant), it has been mentioned that "Hanging Issue, Touch not working intermitted and tapping sound from home button". The said job sheet/report is dated 30.10.2018 and the mobile phone was also returned on 16.11.2018 by OP No.2. The OP-2 have mentioned on service report dated 30.10.2018 extra finding simply using euphemistic or coded language, after receiving the mobile. OP-2 cannot dilute the effect of findings in warranty reports/job reports simply by using euphemistic or coded language. The opposite parties did not disclose any documents during litigation to show that device is bent. There was no evidence to show that it caused the damage physically. No mechanical reports of the deposited mobile handset filed by OP`s. Duty is higher in the case of a problem which the Manufacturer can actually remedy, the where there are no known cure. It is well settled law that proceeding under Consumer Protection Act are quasi-judicial proceedings and it is also well settled law that controversial facts should be proved by a party strictly under section 13 (4) of the Consumer Protection Act-1986. The complainant has admitted this fact that opposite party No.2/Authorized Service Centre had returned the i-phone saying that it could not be repaired under warranty and demanded Rs.27,000/- for repairing the same.
11. From the appreciation of the evidence on record as the mobile handset become unusable within 2 weeks from its purchase,  it is in the fitness of the case if the Opposite Parties are directed to repair the mobile handset of the complainant to his satisfaction free of cost. However, in our considered opinion, no compensation or cost of litigation is required to be allowed to the complainant because substantive relief of repair without cost is available to him.  Consequently, complaint succeeds to the extent that the opposite parties are directed to repair the mobile handset of the complainant without charging any amount from him. The OP`s are given one months’ time to repair the mobile handset in dispute.  The complainant is directed to deposit the mobile hand set in dispute within a weeks’ time from the date of receipt of copy of the order, while the opposite parties are ordered to do needful within a further period of one month. However, the complainant is not entitled to any compensation or cost of the complaint. The complaint stands disposed of accordingly. Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of costs.

The copy of order be uploaded on the website of the Commission.

File be consigned to record room along with a copy of the order.

Announced in open Commission on this 16^th Day of February, 2023.

                             

 

POONAM CHAUDHRY

                                                      PRESIDENT

 

BARIQ AHMAD                                                               SHEKHAR CHANDRA

      (MEMBER)                                                                            (MEMBER)