Delhi

East Delhi

CC/314/2016

ANMOL KAKAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

NEW GALAXY INDIA - Opp.Party(s)

08 May 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO. 314/16

 

Shri Anmol Kakar

S/o Shri Kishan Lal

R/o 16/153, Geeta Colony

Delhi – 110 031                                                          ….Complainant

Vs.    

 

1. M/s. New Galaxy (India)

Through its AR/Proprietor

12/124, Geeta Colony

Delhi – 110 031     

 

2. Future World Retail Pvt. Ltd.

Through its AR/Proprietor

Shop No. 9, Outer Circle

Connaught Place, New Delhi – 110 001                           …Opponents

 

 

Date of Institution: 13.06.2016

Judgement Reserved on: 08.05.2019

Judgement Passed on: 13.05.2019

 

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By: Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

 

 

JUDGEMENT

            This complaint has been filed by Shri Anmol Kakar against           M/s. New Galaxy (India) (OP-1) and M/s. Future World Retail Pvt. Ltd.  (OP-2) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with allegations of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. 

2.         The facts in brief are that the complainant purchased a mobile hand set - Apple i-Phone 5S from New Galaxy India (OP-1) for an amount of    Rs. 49,000/- vide invoice no. 21736 dated 13.06.2014 with additional warranty of one year.

            It was stated that from the very first day, the phone was not working properly due to Auto Turn Off, Screen Flickering, Low Sound Output and Speaker issue for which the complainant explained the problems to the executive/sales person of Apple i-Phone Store and requested for replacement or refund the cost of mobile phone.  He was told that there was no problem in the phone; the phone was technical so the complainant was facing difficulties to operate the same.

            On 19.05.2016, the complainant approached OP-1 for replacement or refund the cost of mobile where he was told that the said mobile having a manufacturing defect, but as per instructions of the company, they could not replace or refund the cost of phone. 

On the same day, the complainant visited the Future World Retail Pvt. Ltd., authorized service centre, and explained the same problem, but they had convinced the complainant that the handset in question was having manufacturing defect before selling so this phone had to be replaced, but neither the manufacturer company nor the shopkeeper was ready to replace the phone or refund the cost.  They continuously advised the complainant to get it repaired from the service centre.

It was further stated that the complainant approached to OP-1 various times, but every time, he was told that the problems of the said mobile could not be rectified due to technical issues and it will take more time.  From 19.05.2016, the mobile was in the possession of the service centre of company.  Hence, the complainant has prayed for directions to OP to refund the cost of mobile phone i.e. Rs. 49,000/-; compensation of Rs. 50,000/- on account of suffering, mental agony and harassment and litigation expenses.

3.         OP-1 appeared in person, but did not file the WS and stopped appearing.  Hence, they were proceeded ex-parte.

In reply filed on behalf of OP-2, they have taken various pleas such as the complainant purchased the mobile phone on 13.06.2014 from OP-1 and the phone was deposited with OP-2 (service centre) on 19.06.2016 for repair;  the phone was not in working condition at the time of depositing and there were several dents, scratches on the device which was mentioned in the job sheet; OP-2 was not the manufacturer of the iPhone and was only an authorized service centre.

It was stated that the phone was deposited at the complainant’s insistence for deep diagnosis and after conducting Micro Inspection Test, engineer of OP-2 found that the iPhone device had unauthorized modification as the battery adhesive tab was missing in the iPhone device and also there were multiple heavy dents on the device.  It was informed to the complainant that due to the unauthorized modification found in the device, the device was out of warranty and therefore could not be covered under the Warranty conditions of Apple India.

It was also stated that engineer of OP-2 also contacted the Apple Technical Team and they also declined to service the said device due to tampering or unauthorized medication found in the device and instructed OP-2 engineer to deny the service for complainant’s iphone 5s device.  Other facts have also been denied.

4.         Complainant have filed rejoinder to the WS of OP-2, wherein he has controverted the pleas taken in the WS and reasserted his pleas.

5.         In support of its case, the complainant have examined himself.  He has deposed on affidavit.  He has narrated the facts which have been  stated in the complaint.  He has also got exhibited copy of invoice and additional warranty bill (Ex.CW- 1/1 & 1/2).

            In defence, OP-2 have examined Shri Vinod Sharma, Senior Service Manager of OP, who have also deposed on affidavit.   He has also narrated the facts which have been stated in the WS.  He has got exhibited copy of service report (Ex.RW2/1), copy of chat under case id 5123098 between OP-2 engineer and Apple Technical Team (Ex.RW2/2) and warranty conditions of Apple India Pvt. Ltd. (Ex.RW2/3). 

6.         We have heard Ld. Counsel for the complainant, Ld. Counsel for OP-2 and have perused the material placed on record.  It has been argued on behalf of OP-2 that they were only the service centre.  He has further argued that there was unauthorized modification of the mobile due to which no service can be provided under the warranty. 

            On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the complainant have stated that there was no unauthorized modification and the mobile was under warranty.

            To appreciate the arguments of Ld. Counsel for the parties, a look has to be made to the testimony of the complainant as well as                Shri Vinod Sharma, AR of OP-2.  If the service report got exhibited as Ex.RW-2/1 in the testimony of Shri Vinod Sharma is looked into, it is noticed that the complainant submitted the mobile with service centre on 19.05.2016 with the problem of Auto Turn Off, Screen Flickering, Low Sound Output and Speaker issue.  When the mobile was checked, they conducted VMI process test which failed due to dents on the phone.  They conducted Micro Inspection Test as stated in the testimony from which they found that iPhone device had unauthorized modification as the battery adhesive tab was missing in the iPhone device and also there was multiple heavy dents on the device.

            Further, they got the iPhone tested from the technical team of Apple who also reported that there was unauthorized modification.  The complainant have purchased the mobile on 13.06.2014.  He got the extended warranty from OP-2 on 09.06.2015.  It has been stated in this service invoice that company shall not be liable for any indirect or consequential damage whatsoever.

            Since the mobile of the complainant was having unauthorized modification and that too after a period of 2 years, certainly, the service centre who have given the warranty, was not liable to get the repair done during the warranty period.  That being so, it cannot be said that there was any deficiency on the part of OP-2.  No liability can also be fastened on   OP-1 as they were only the dealers.

            In view of the above, we are of the opinion that there was no deficiency on the part of OPs.  Hence, the complaint of the complainant deserves its dismissal and the same is dismissed.  There is no order as to cost.

Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

            File be consigned to Record Room.

 

 

 

(HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)                                          (SUKHDEV SINGH)

              Member                                                                          President