BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Complaint Case no.67 of 2018
Date of Institution: 19.2.2018
Date of Decision: 14.2.2019
Sandeep Kamboj son of Shri K.P. Kamboj, resident of Gali Jandi Wali, Khairpur, Hisar Road, Sirsa. 98121-88970.
………Complainant.
Versus
1. Satyam Mobiles, through its Prop/ Incharge, Sadar Bazar, Sirsa.
2. I-qor Global Services India Private Limited, (Apple Premium Service Provider) Shop No.5, Ground Floor, Suncity Mall, Delhi Road, Hisar- 125005 (Haryana) through its Authorized Officer.
3. Apple India Private Limited, 19th Floor Concorde Tower-C, UB City-24, Vittal Malya Road, Banglore- 56001 through its Managing Direcotr.
……… Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Before: SH. R.L.AHUJA ………………. PRESIDENT
SH. ISSAM SINGH SAGWAL ……MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Mandeep Kamboj, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. H.S. Raghav, Advocate for opposite party no.1.
Opposite party no.2 exparte.
Sh. A.S. Kalra, Advocate for opposite party no.3.
ORDER
In brief, case of complainant is that complainant purchased I.Phone make Apple company from opposite party no.1 against the cash amount of Rs.17,000/- vide invoice No.11 dated 21.8.2017 with guarantee/ warrantee of one year. That after a short time of 15 days of its purchase, the mobile started creating problem of software, low charging, automatic cut in the charging process due to which the mobile was not charging. It is further averred that the complainant approached op no.1 and complained about above defects in the mobile set and op no.1 also checked the defects and kept the set with assurance to redress the grievance of complainant. At that time, op no.1 asked the complainant about the I-cloud password of the mobile set, but the complainant was not remember about it, upon which op no.1 assured the complainant not to worry and the company engineer will manage it. It is further averred that thereafter op no.1 sent the mobile set at the service centre of the company/ op no.2 and the job sheet to this effect was issued by op no.2 on 3.10.2017, That op no.2 after keeping the mobile set with them for about 11 days failed to redress the grievance of complainant rather committing deficiency in service and unfair trade practice have refused to put the mobile set in OK condition or to replace it in case of any manufacturing defect therein. That op no.2 even did not go through the mobile set rather simply causing harassment to the complainant has returned the mobile set without any positive step qua the defects complained by complainant, thus the ops completely failed to provide the services to the complainant, though the fact remains that defects occurred therein within the guarantee period. It is further averred that due to above said act and conduct on the part of ops, the complainant not only undergone mental tension, harassment but also could not use/avail the service of mobile inspite of spending huge amount of Rs.17,000/-, hence the complainant is entitled to compensation of Rs.50,000/- from the ops on these counts. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite party no.1 appeared and filed written statement raising certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that mobile set purchased by op no.1 from its manufacturer/ distributor in a sealed and packed condition and sell out the same as he received from the Distributor/ manufacturer on the nominal profit and there is no active role of op no.1 between complainant and manufacturer. It is further submitted that answering op no.1 has never given any guarantee/ assurance or warrantee of mobile set to the complainant. Moreover, manufacturing company always mentions the guarantee/ warrantee conditions on the log book/ manual contained in box of mobile set which ought to go through by each customer and the manufacturer also mentions the list of their authorized service centre, which are being run under the control of manufacturing company for providing time to time services to the customers and they also advise to the customers to get their complaint redressed from the authorized service centre, meaning thereby the dealers after sale of mobile set on behalf of company, have no interference between the customers and service centers. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied.
3. Opposite party no.2 did not appear despite notice sent through RC and was proceeded against exparte.
4. Opposite party no.3 appeared and filed written statement resisting the complaint asserting about the reputation and internationally renowed leader/ company. It is further submitted that it is a common market principle and also an established position of law that consumers who willfully destroy, damage or negligently handle a product are not eligible to claim any relief under the Act. It is further submitted that complainant purchased the said iphone 5 S on 21.8.2017 from op no.1 who is not an authorized dealer/ reseller of op no.3. The complainant approached the op no.2 on 3.10.2017 with regard to charging issues. The op no.2 who is the authorized service provider of op no.3 inspected the said iphone and found the said issue in the device. The op no.2 repaired the said device and the issue was resolved and mobile was returned back to the complainant in the working condition. As the iphone was under warrantee after repairing the device the said iphone was functioning well and the complainant has acknowledged the same while collecting it back from op no.2. No other issue found in the mobile. Further the complainant never visited nor approached op no.2 for any sort of issues in the device. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied.
5. The complainant and op no.3 then led their respective evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.
7. The complainant in order to prove his complaint has furnished his affidavit Ex.CW1/A in which he has reiterated all the averments made in the complaint. He has also produced copy of delivery challan/ job sheet Ex.C1, copy of bill Ex.C2. On the other hand, op no.3 produced affidavit of Sh. Priyesh Poovanna, Country Legal Counsel as Ex.R1, copy of authorization letter Ex.R2 and copy of warranty card Ex.R3. Whereas ld. counsel for op no.1 suffered a statement that written statement filed on behalf of op no.1 be read as evidence on behalf of op no.1.
8. It is proved fact on record that complainant has purchased mobile in question from opposite party no.1 for a sum of Rs.17,000/- on 21.8.2017. As per allegations of complainant after a short time of 15 days of its purchase, the mobile set started creating problems of software, low charging, automatic cut in the charging process on account of which mobile was not charging. The complainant approached service centre i.e. op no.2 but the service centre without touching the fault returned the same without making it defect free. Though, op no.3 who is manufacturer of the mobile in question has taken a plea that mobile of complainant is not within warranty period but the perusal of the bill Ex.C2 reveals that it was purchased on 21.8.2017 and thereafter defects were reported to the ops on 3.10.2017 i.e. within warrantee period and present complaint has been filed by complainant on 19.2.2018 i.e. within warrantee period of one year. The op no.3 has not led any other evidence from which it could be presumed that iphone is not within warrantee period. The op no.3 has not led any evidence to prove this fact that mobile in question is out of warrantee and is not covered under warrantee. It is legal obligation of the ops to provide services to the consumers like complainant and in case of any defect to make the same defect free without any costs and non providing of services to the complainant clearly 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 repair in the mobile in question of complainant to make the same defect free without any costs and if same is not repairable to replace the same with same make and model and in case the said mobile is not available then to make refund of the amount of mobile in question to the complainant. We also direct the ops to further pay a sum of Rs.1500/- as composite compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant. The ops are liable to comply with this order within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the complainant will be entitled to interest @7% per annum on the amount of Rs.17,000/- i.e. price of mobile from the date of order till actual realization. All the ops are jointly and severally liable to comply with this order. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open Forum. Member President,
Dated: 14.2.2019. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
