SNAPDEAL .COM(HEAD OFFICE). V/S DIVANSHU SINGLA. - Consumer Court Case

Haryana

Panchkula

CC/212/2017

DIVANSHU SINGLA. - Complainant(s)

Versus

SNAPDEAL .COM(HEAD OFFICE). - Opp.Party(s)

ROBIN SATHI

18 May 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PANCHKULA.

Consumer Complaint No	:	212 of 2017
Date of Institution	:	19.09.2017
Date of Decision	:	18.05.2018

Divanshu Singla S/o Rakesh Kumar Singla, temporary residing at Pankhuri, SF-44, First Floor, Sector-8, Panchkula.

….Complainant

Versus

Snapdeal.com(head office), 362-263, ASF Centre, Udyog Vihar, Industrial Area Phase-4, Gurgaon-122016 (near Sector 18) through authorized representative.
Apple India Private Limited, 19^th Floor, Concorde Tower C, UB City, No.24, Vittal Mallya Road, Bangalore-560001.
Gemleo Merchandises Pvt. Ltd GGN_SDRNA, Khasra No.26//13, 14,15/1, 16/1, 17/1, 18/1, 27//11 VIII, Sadhrana Village, City Gurgaon, State Haryana, PIN 123505, Company’s Vat Tin:06131950381, Company’s CST No: 06131950381, through authorized representative.
Customer care centre of Apple India, F1 info Solutions and services Pvt. Ltd., First Floor, SCO No.274, Sector 32-D, Chandigarh, through authorized representative.

Alternative Address:-

Paramatrix info solutions (private ltd.) apple services, SCO No.112-113, Ground Floor, Sector 34-A, Sub City Centre, Sector 34, Chandigarh, PIN: 160034.

….Opposite Parties

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

Before: Mr. Dharam Pal, President.

Mr. Jagmohan Singh, Member.

Present: Mr. Robin Sathi, Advocate for complainant.

Mr. Amit Mahajan, Advocate for the OP no.1.

Mr. Sunidh Kashyap, Advocate for the OP No.2.

OP No.3 already ex-parte vide order dated 3.11.2017.

Mr. Abhinav Sood, authorized representative for the OP No.4.

ORDER

(Dharam Pal, President)

1. The complainant has filed this complaint against the Ops with the averments that complainant purchased iPhone 5S (16gb Silver) (manufactured by OP No.2) online from OP No.1 on 20.9.2016 for a sum of Rs. 21,062/- credited by HDFC bearing card No.4893772405163300 on EMI basis, which are being regularly paid by the complainant. But after four months the said iPhone created issues of technical error like display problems (colours), hanging issues, processor getting slow, battery backup low, overheating etc. So, in January 2017, the complainant approached the OP No.4, who assured the complainant that if, complainant has not been satisfied then the said mobile would be replaced. The complainant was not given the job sheet on said day. The complainant again visited the OP No.4 in March, 2017 and informed them the defects of the mobile and there was even a black line on the screen and the screen was getting effected, but that time also job sheet was not provided to him. The OP No.4 promised the complainant that display would be changed free of cost, if any defect was found by the engineers of the company and complainant agreed to the same, but the engineer refused to change the same. After that the said mobile was started having further defects as finger sensor stopped working, receiver noice in calling stage, abnormal LCD brightness, hanging issues, battery backup, overheating issues, low battery backup etc. again defective phone was handed over in their service centre (OP No.4) and they informed the complainant that said mobile has issues of charging and cable was changed. So complainant requested the OP No.4 to replace the defective phone with new one, but he refused. In September, 2017, the complainant again approached the OP No.4 with the same grievances, but OP No.4 did not pay any heed. The said phone has started hanging a lot, screen started removing, finger sensor had stopped completely, over heating issues and low battery backup and the complainant requested personally to OP No.4, but no effect. This act and conduct of the OPs amount to deficiency in service on their part. Hence, this complaint.

2. Upon notice, OPs No.1, 2 and 4 appeared and contested the complaint by filing their separate written statement by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable; the present complaint is liable to be dismissed due to misjoinder of necessary parties; the complainant has suppressed true and material facts from this Forum and not come with clean hands; the Forum does not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present compliant. The OP No.1 has stated that the OP No.1 operates its online marketplace platform under the brand name/trademark “Snapdeal” through the website i.e.

3. In his written version, OP No.2 has stated that the iPhone are sold in India by the OP No.2 through their authorized dealers/resellers utmost the satisfaction of customer. It is stated that the complainant has used the iPhone negligently and damaged it, hence it could not be serviced/replaced under warranty. The complainant was informed that his iPhone was out of warranty and could not be repaired under warranty. The OP No.4 offered paid repair for the said iPhone, but the complainant declined and took his iPhone back on the same date. The present case is not related to any manufacturing defect with the farthest stretch of imagination. The complainant has visited the OP No.4 only on 16.9.2017. There is no proof that the complainant had visited the OP No.4 in January & March 2017. The OP No. 4 is authorized service provider of the OP No.2 and the complainant never visited the OP No.4 besides on 16.9.2017 for inspection of his mobile. The OP No.4 inspected and found the complainant’s iPhone to be damaged. So OP No.4 refused service/replacement as it had violated the warranty terms and conditions. Had the said iPhone found to be having genuine issues, then the OP No.4 would have repaired/replaced it under warranty based on its provisions. The complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the warranty policy. In the absence of any manufacturing defects consumer cannot claim benefits/relief.

4. In his written version, OP No.4 has stated that the relationships between the OPs are on principal to principal basis. OP No.4 is just an authorized service centre of the Apple India Pvt. Ltd and warranty of the products is given by the said company i.e. the Manufacturer of the mobile handset and not by OP No.4. The OP No.4 repairs the products of the said company on the instructions of company and it is just a facilitator between the company and the customer as such OP No.4 in under no liability raised by the complainant in the present complaint. The manufacturer provides one year warranty and warranty means repairs nor replacement and though the warranty is subject to some condition that in case the unit is liquid/water logged, serial number missing, physical damaged, mishandling and tampering, in case the handset was damaged as these, then the warranty expire and customer has to pay the charges on the repairs. OP No.4 is not a customer care centre. The OP No.4 is ready to repair the handset on chargeable basis but the complainant himself is not ready to spend the money. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

5. Complainant has filed the replication to the written statement of OP No.2 and 4 and reiterated the contents of the complaint.

6. The counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit as Annexure C-A along with documents Annexure C-1 to C-5 and thereafter closed the evidence. On the other hand, counsel for the OP No.1 tendered into evidence by way of affidavit Annexure R1/A along with documents Annexure R1/1 to R1/4 and closed the evidence, Counsel for the OP No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit Annexure R2/A along with documents Annexure R2/1 and R2/2 has closed the evidence, Counsel for the OP No.4 tendered into evidence affidavit Annexure R4/A along with documents Annexure R4/1 and R4/4 has closed the evidence .

7. Notice was issued to OP No.3 through registered post. But none has appeared on behalf of OP No.3, it is deemed to be served. Hence, the OP No.3 was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 3.11.2017.

8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully and minutely.

9. From the service delivery challan dated 16.9.2017 (Annexure C-4), it is found that the mobile was “ Proximity sensor and display popping issues reported, cannot be covered under warranty as display cosmetic damage and deep dent cannot be covered under warranty as per Apple VMI Guidelines”. We have perused the terms and conditions of warranty Annexure R2/2. As per the terms and conditions of warranty which reproduced hereinbelow:-

“WHAT IS NOT COVERED BY THIS WARRANTY?

This warranty does not apply to any non-Apple branded hardware products or any software, even if packaged or sold with Apple hardware. Manufacturers, suppliers, or publishers, other than Apple, may provide their own warranties to you-please contact them for further information. Software distributed by Apple with or without the Apple brand (including, but not limited to system software) is not covered by this warranty. Please refer to the licensing agreement accompanying the software for details of your rights with respect to its use. Apple does not warrant that the operation of the Apple Product will be uninterrupted or error-free. Apple is not responsible for damage arising from failure to follow instructions relating to the Apple Product’s use.

This Warranty does not applyLa) to consumable parts, such as batteries or protective coatings that are designed to diminish over time, unless failure has occurred due to a defect in materials or workmanship; (b) to cosmetic damage, including but not limited to scratches, dents and broken plastic on ports unless failure has occurred due to a defect in materials or workmanship; (c) to damage caused by use with a third party component or product that does not meet the Apple Product’s specifications (Apple Product specifications are available at

10. Since the damage to the mobile was caused by accident, which is proved from photographs of the mobile phone in question (Annexure R4/3) is not covered in the terms of warranty, the Opposite Parties were right in charging for the repair to the mobile being outside the warranty clause. Hence, it is safe to conclude that there is no deficiency in service on the part of any of the Opposite Parties.

11. Henceforth, judged from every angle and in view of the foregoings, we have no hesitation to conclude that the complainant has not been able to prove his case of alleged deficiency on the part of Opposite Parties. Rather, the Opposite Parties have succeeded in providing their defence. Therefore, we do not fine any merit, weight and substance in the present complaint. Thus, the same is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. A copy of this order be supplied, free of cost, to the parties to the complaint and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.