Haryana

Karnal

CC/487/2023

Parvinder - Complainant(s)

Versus

Shivam Communication - Opp.Party(s)

Piyush Batra

03 Dec 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                        Complaint No.487 of 2023

                                                        Date of instt 01.09.2023

                                                        Date of Decision: 03.12.2024

 

Parvinder aged about 33 years, son of Zile Singh, resident of village Chapra Khera, District Karnal.

 

                                                                        …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1.  Shivam Communication, Gali no.09, Hansi Road, Karnal, through its proprietor.
2. The Branch Manager, Digicare services (Apple Karnal), shop no.FF-3, 2^nd floor, Super Mall, Sector-12, District Karnal.
3. Apple India (Pvt.) Ltd. 19^th floor, Concord Tower-C UB city no.24, Vittal Mallya Road, Bengaluru-560 001, through its Managing Director.

…..Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Shri Jaswant Singh……President.     

              Ms. Neeru Agarwal…….Member

      Ms. Sarvjeet Kaur…..Member

 

Argued by:  Shri Piyush Batra, counsel for the complainant.

                    OPs no.1 and 2 exparte, vide order Dt.17.10.2023.

                    Shri Tapan Verma, counsel for the OP No.3.

                   

                     (Neeru Agarwal, Member)

ORDER:   

                

                The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that complainant purchased I-phone 13, 128 GB, IMEI no.352094673855745 from OP no.1, vide invoice no.SHV/23-24/07 dated 05.05.2023 for an amount of Rs.64900/-. After 20 days from the date of purchase of said I-phone, it heated up firstly and then same shut-down/close and it became useless and dead on 28.06.2023. Thereafter, complainant contacted the OP no.1 on 28.06.2023 complained about the matter but OP no.1 told to complainant to contact the OP no.2 and made complaint regarding any defect of said  I-phone.  On 29.06.2023, brother of complainant contacted the OPs no.2 and 3 and made complained regarding the defect of said I-phone and submitted the same to DIGI CARE on 29.06.2023, vide job no.HR230629Q50046 serial no.N2LLF7JYOK, Repair ID-G587880459, since then the OP no.2 kept the same for its repair. Thereafter, OP no.2 demanded an amount of Rs.50,000/- from the complainant for its repair inspite of the fact that same is under guarantee and warrantee period, when complainant refused to give the said amount to the OP no.2, then the OP no.2 returned the said I-phone to complainant on 17.07.2023 and denied to repair the same with the product service summary letter issued by the OP no.3 in which they mentioned that product has accidental damage. OP no.1 sold the defective I-phone to the complainant. It is pertinent to mention here that there is no scratches, dent on the said phone and same is o.k. physically. Moreover, there is no accidental damage with the said I-phone at any point of time. Complainant requested the OPs several times either to replace the said defective I-phone with branded new one of same model or to refund an amount of Rs.64900/- with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of purchase till its realization but OPs did not pay any heed. Then complainant sent a legal notice dated 25.07.2023 to the OPs but it also did not yield any result. Due to the said act and conduct of OPs, complainant has suffered mental pain, agony and harassment. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence complainant filed the present complaint.

2.             On notice, OPs no.1 and 2 did not appear despite service and opted to be proceeded against exparte, vide order dated 17.10.2023 of the Commission.

3.             OP no.3 appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus standi and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that complainant firstly approached to the OP no.2/AASP of the OP no.3 on 29.06.2023 with the alleged defect. The Repair Acceptance form dated 29.06.2023 clearly mentions accidental damage, dents and gouge in the I-phone. The I-Phone was sent to the Apple Repair Centre for diagnosis and during the diagnosis it was found that the subject phone has internal damage to the enclosure grill and barometer with some foreign material present in and around the enclosure grill and barometer. The complainant was informed that the subject phone has been rendered outside the Apple Hardware Warranty and was offered paid replacement/repair but the same was denied by the complainant. Accordingly the subject phone was returned to the complainant. It is further pleaded that Apple Hardware Warranty is only applicable in cases where there exists any manufacturing defect. But in the present complaint, complainant has failed to provide any evidence to prove that there was any manufacturing defect in the subject phone. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint

4.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

5.             Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A, copy of invoice Ex.C1,  original repair acceptance form Ex.C2, copy of product service summary Ex.C3, legal notice Ex.C4, postal receipts Ex.C5, email dated 09.08.2023 Ex.C6 and closed the evidence on 01.03.2024 by suffering separate statement.

6.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP no.3 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Sandeep Karmakar Ex.OPW3/A, copy of warranty policy Ex.OP3/1, copy of minutes of Board Meeting Ex.OP3/2, Letter of Authorization Ex.OP3/3 and closed the evidence on 13.05.2024 by suffering separate statement.

7.             We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

8.             Learned counsel for complainant, while reiterating the contents of the complaint, has vehemently argued that on 05.05.2023, complainant purchased one I-phone from OPs for an amount of Rs.64900/-.  After few days of its purchase, the said I-phone created problem of heating and after heating the same shut-down and it became useless and dead. Complainant contacted the OP no.1 several times and complained about the same. Despite repeated requests, on 29.06.2023, OP no.2 kept the said Iphone and demanded an amount of Rs.50,000/- for its repair whereas the same was under guarantee and warrantee period. When complainant refused to give the said amount then the OP no.2 returned the I-phone and denied to repair the same. In this way, OPs sold the defective I-phone to the complainant. There was no accidental damage with the said I-phone. Complainant requested the OPs several times either to replace the said defective I-phone with new one or to refund the cost of the same but OPs did not do so. There is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

8.             Per contra, learned counsel for the OP no.3, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that there was accidental damaged, dents and gouge in the I-phone. So, it was outside the Apple Hardware Warranty. OPs asked the complainant to pay the repair charges but the same was denied by the complainant. There is no manufacturing defect in the said phone and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

9.             We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties.

10.           Complainant has alleged that OPs sold the defective I-phone to the complainant and during the warranty period, it becomes defad. The onus to prove his case was relied upon the complainant but he has miserably failed to prove the same by leading any cogent evidence. Rather, OPs have alleged that the problem occurred in the I-phone due to accidental damage. To rebut the said plea taken by the OPs, complainant has not placed on file any documentary evidence to prove that there was no accidental damage in the Iphone.  Thus, there is nothing on the file to ascertain that the I-phone in question was having manufacturing defect. Complainant has placed on file only copy of invoice Ex.C1,  original repair acceptance form Ex.C2, copy of product service summary Ex.C3, legal notice Ex.C4, postal receipts Ex.C5, email dated 09.08.2023 Ex.C6. On perusal of Service Summary Ex.C3 wherein OP has clearly mentioned that product is not working correctly because it has accidental damaged.

11.           Thus, in view of the above, the present complaint is devoid of any merits and same deserves to be dismissed and same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:03.12.2024     

                                                                

                                                                President,

                                                   District Consumer Disputes

                                                   Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

                 (Neeru Agarwal)              (Sarvjeet Kaur)

               Member                              Member