Karnataka

Bangalore 4th Additional

CC/2839/2017

Ms. Jayashree More, - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sanjay Kaul, Managing Director, Apple India Pvt. Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Thakur and Sinha Law Offices LLP

29 Mar 2019

ORDER

Complaint filed on: 26.10.2017

                                                      Disposed on: 29.03.2019

 

BEFORE THE IV ADDL DISTRICT

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BENGALURU

 1^ST FLOOR, BMTC, B-BLOCK, TTMC BUILDING, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 027    

 

 

CC.No.2839/2017

DATED THIS THE 29^th MARCH OF 2019

PRESENT

 

 

SMT.PRATHIBHA R.K, BAL, LLM, PRESIDENT

SMT.N.R.ROOPA, B.A., LLB, MEMBER

 

	Complainant/s	V/s	Opposite party/s
	Ms.Jayashree More, Aged about 41 years, Flat No.203, C-Wing, Runwal Centre, Deonar, Chembur, Mumbai-400088.   By.Adv.Rishabha Raj Thakur	1	Sanjay Kaul, Managing Director, Apple India Pvt. Ltd., No.24, 19th Floor, Concorde Tower C, Vittal Mallya Road, Bangalore-01.   By.Adv.Anant Kulkarni
		2	B2X Service Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., Shop No.6 & 7, Ground Floor, Chintamani Plaza, Chakala, Andheri-Kurla Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400099. Rep by its Managing Director   Exparte.

 

SMT.PRATHIBHA. R.K., PRESIDENT

1.        This complaint is filed by the complainant against the Opposite parties (herein after called as OPs), under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Complainant prays to direct the OPs to refund the price the iPhone amounting to Rs.67,130/- together with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of purchase i.e.29.3.2017 till the date of receipt, to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards mental and physical stress, monetary loss, time loss and work loss, to pay Rs.20,000/- towards the cost of litigation and to grant such other reliefs deems fit in the circumstances of the case.

2. The brief fact of the complaint is as under.          

            The complainant submitted that she has purchased iPhone 7 128 GB rose gold from Reliance Digital, Mumbai costing Rs.67,130/- on 29.3.2017 having Sl.No.FK1SQ2XCHG7N & IMEI No.353778082603857. On 29.6.2017, the complainant noticed that there was a defect in the said iPhone wherein it was unable to detect the headphone on call, music and while running any application. The said fact was communicated to the OP-1 vide emails. The complainant reported the above said defect to the OP-2 on 10.7.2017. The Ops replaced the iPhone Sl.No.FK1SQ2XCHG7N on 21.7.2017.

            2a.      The complainant further submitted that after using the iPhone for a week, she alleged problems of iPhone is unable to detect the headphone on call, music and while running any application, touch pad hanging and not working intermittently and iPhone automatically goes on speaker while head phone are inserted reoccurred.  She informed these problems to the OP-1 through emails. The iPhone was reported again to the OP-2 for repairs on 1.8.2017 when once again the OP-2 has failed to repair the alleged problems.  The OP-2 informed the complainant that there is no problem with the iPhone and alleged problems are happening due to corrupt back up of the complainant in the iCloud.

            2b.      The complainant further submitted that she has then reset the iPhone and chose the option of “ Use as new iPhone” rather than “restore from iCloud or iTunes Backup”. However, despite doing this, the problems were persistent in the iPhone which itself was evident to show the latent defect in the replacement iPhone given to the complainant. The iPhone was replaced again with a new one having Replacement Sl.No.F17SLKWMHG7N on 4.8.2017.

            2c.      The complainant further submitted that the same problems were found even in the 3^rd handset just after using it for a day. The complainant has been informed about the recurrent problem to the OP-1 via mail dt.5.8.2017. Thereafter, the OP-1 has asked the complainant to upload a video showing the reoccurrence of the alleged problems.  She has uploaded the video on the link shared by the OP-1 in the email dt.7.8.2017. The OP-1 has once again blamed the corrupt back up for the problems in the iPhone. The complainant submitted that it may be noted that the she has not restored the back up.  

            2d.      The complainant further submitted that the Ops were unable to find out the root cause of such repeated complaints.  The technical team of the Ops had informed the complainant over phone that the alleged problems would be resolved once the new operating software, iOS 11 is launched. The complainant had requested the OP-1 to give the same in writing to which they denied to do so. It is evident from the recurrent nature of the alleged issues that it is not a software issue and is clear cut case of manufacturing lot issue. Further, the Ops are unable to repair the defective iPhone. The complainant has issued a legal notice on 13.9.2017 calling upon the Ops to refund the amount with interest at 12% p.a. Hence, this complaint.

3.        After service of the notice, the OP-2 did not appear before the forum and they were called out as absent and they have been placed exparte. The OP-1 did appear and filed their version and denying the contents of the complaint filed by the Complainant.   The OP-1 submitted that the device is covered within the warranty period and the same shall be repaired or replaced, as the case may be. The products that are not faulty and are functioning well cannot be replaced merely at the discretion of the complainant. The complainant cannot claim warranty as provided by the manufacturer, if there is no defect detected by the AASP. It is appropriate to state that the customers must comply with the warranty policies else it will be considered as breach of the warranty policies and they cannot claim relief under the CP Act. The warranty clearly states that only parts which are found to be replaceable under warranty if they are found to be having issues detected.     

3a.      The OP-1 submitted that the complainant had approached the OP-2 on 10.7.2017 with regard to some issues pertaining to his iPhone 7 unable to detect the headphones, having Sl.No.FK1SQ2XCHG7N. The OP-2 who is the authorized service provider of OP-1 inspected the said iPhone and found it had iCloud back up been corrupt. As the iPhone was under warranty, the device was diagnosed and was replaced with new iPhone 7 having Sl.No.F17SLKWMHG7N. After replacement, the iPhone was functioning well and the complainant has acknowledged the same while collecting it back from the OP-2. There are no other issues found in the said iPhone. The complainant has failed to provide a shred of evidence to show that any such Govt. Agency having certified the iPhone 7 as a defective product. Hence, the claim of her iPhone 7 being defective does not hold water.

3b.      The OP-1 submitted that the iPhone 7 was replaced twice, later it was found that the headphone which the complainant used was of other brand. As mentioned in the warranty policy “This warranty does not apply” in Clause (c), it states that damage caused by use with a third party component or product that does not meet the Apple Product’s specifications. Since the complainant has used third party which has breached the warranty provision, OP-1 is not liable for compensation, nor replacement of the alleged iPhone.

3c.      The OP-1 submitted that as per the warranty provisions, the OP-2 had carefully inspected the said iPhone 7 and observed that the headphone was unable to detect, due to the negligent use by the complainant. As it was under warranty, the iPhone were suggested to be replaced. The complainant’s claim stating that the iPhone is defective is totally unwarranted and unjustified. It is pertinent to mention that there weren’t any defects with the iPhone 7. The iPhone 7is replaced and delivered as per the warranty, however, the complainant is misusing the repeated replacement and now she wants to illegally enrich herself by making this unjustified complaint. On these grounds and other grounds, prays for dismissal of the complaint.

 

4. In the course of enquiry into the complaint, the complainant and the OP-1 have filed their affidavit and reproducing what they have stated in their respective complaint and objection. Both parties have filed written arguments. The complainant and OP have produced documents which were marked. We have heard the arguments of both sides and we have gone through the oral and documentary evidence of both parties scrupulously and posted the case for order.  

5.        Based on the above materials, the following points arise for our consideration;  

1) Whether the Complainant proves the deficiency  

     in service on the part of the OPs, if so, whether 

     she is entitled for the relief sought for?

 

2) What Order?

 

6. Our findings on the above points are as under:

Point No.1:               In the negative

Point No.2:               As per the final order for the following:

REASONS

7. POINT NO.1:      On perusal of the pleadings, evidence and documents produced by both the parties, it is an admitted fact that, the complainant has purchased iPhone 7 128 GB rose gold from Reliance Digital, Mumbai costing Rs.67,130/- on 29.3.2017 having Sl.No.FK1SQ2XCHG7N & IMEI No.353778082603857/Ex-A1. On 29.6.2017, the complainant noticed that there was a defect in the said iPhone wherein it was unable to detect the headphone on call, music and while running any application. The said fact was communicated to the OPs vide emails/Ex-A4. The complainant reported the above said defect to the OP-2 on 10.7.2017. The Ops have replaced the iPhone Sl.No.FK1SQ2XCHG7N on 21.7.2017 as per Ex-A2.

8.       After using the iPhone for a week, the alleged problems of iPhone was unable to detect the headphone on call, music and while running any application, touch pad hanging and not working intermittently and iPhone automatically goes on speaker while head phone are inserted reoccurred.  The complainant informed these problems to the OP-1 through emails/Ex-A5 and approached the OP-2 service centre on 1.8.2017. The OP-2 has failed to repair the alleged problems.  The OP-2 replaced the iPhone on 4.8.2017 as per Ex-A3. The complainant submits that after using it for a day, the third handset is also having the same problem. Hence, the complainant requested to refund the price of the iPhone which was paid by her.

9.        The Ops submits that there is no problem in the replaced handset. The complainant has misused the repeated replacement. Further, the complainant has not produced any expert opinion to show that the device having a manufacturing defect. Based on the mere allegations of the complainant, the amount cannot be refunded.

10.      Admittedly, the two phones vide Nos. Sl.No.FK1SQ2XCHG7N and Sl.No.F17SLKWMHG7N came to be replaced by the Ops. In the earlier occasion also, though there was a problem with regard to the iCloud backup and due to the fact that the complainant has used the head phone of different company. The Ops had replaced the phone on two occasions. Now the similar complaint has been raised and again the same grievance has been raised by the complainant. The reason assigned by the complainant cannot be accepted for third time. When the Ops have replaced the phone on two occasions, now the complainant cannot be asked to refund the amount on the same ground. Further, the complainant has used the head phone of different company. As per the warranty policy, it is mentioned as “This warranty does not apply” as the complainant has used the third party component or product. Since the complainant has used third party component, the warranty is not applicable. Further, the OP Company being a reputed manufacturer worldwide must have faced the similar complaint in the manufacture batch itself. However, no such manufacturing defect is forthcoming. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Ops. Hence, the complaint filed by the Complainant is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, we answered the Point No.1 in the negative.

11.      POINT NO.2:           In the result, for the foregoing reasons, we proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

The complaint filed by the Complainant is hereby dismissed. No costs.

Supply free copy of this order to both the parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed, typed by her/him and corrected by me, then pronounced in the open Forum on 29^th March 2019).

(ROOPA.N.R)     MEMBER

(PRATHIBHA.R.K.)    PRESIDENT

 

 

 

1. Witness examined on behalf of the complainant/s by way of affidavit:

 

Ms.Jayashree More., who being the Complainant was examined. 

 

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Complainant/s:

 

Ex-A1	Copy of the Invoice dt.30.3.2017
Ex-A2	Copy of the service report dt.10.7.2017 and Delivery report dt.21.7.2017
Ex-A3	Copy of the service report dt.1.8.2017 and the delivery report dt.4.8.2017
Ex-A4	Copy of the email dt.5.8.2017 and 7.8.2017
Ex-A5	Copy of the mail conversation
Ex-A6	Copy of the legal notice dt.13.9.2017

 

2. Witness examined on behalf of the Opposite party/s by way of affidavit:

 

Priyesh Poovanna., Authorized Signatory, who being the 1^st Opposite Party was examined.

 

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Opposite Party

 

Ex-B1	Copy of the extracts of Board Resolution
Ex-B2	Warranty provisions/terms

 

(ROOPA.N.R) MEMBER

(PRATHIBHA .R.K.)       PRESIDENT