Haryana

Karnal

211/2014

Arijeet Singh S/o Parninder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Swaagat Soni Advantage Store - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. S.S. Moonak

01 Dec 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                         

                                                          Complaint No. 211 of 2014

                                                          Date of instt.: 31.07.2014

                                                          Date of decision:1.12.2015

 

Arijeet Singh son of Shri Pavninder Singh re sident of House No.476, Model Town, Karnal.

                                                                  ……..Complainant.

                   Vs.

 

1.Swaagat, Sony Advantage Store, 330-221, Ist Floor, Kkunjpura Road, Opp.Head Post Office, Karnal.

 

2.Apple,Authorized Service Centre, Infotech Computers 7 Communications, SCO 204, Sec.12, Urban Estate, Karnal.

3.Apple India Private Limited, 19 Floor, Concorde Tower C, UB City No.24, Vittal Mallya Road, Bangalore 560 001,

                                                                  …..Opposite Parties.

 

                    Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer

                     Protection Act.

 

Before          Sh.K.C.Sharma……….President.

                   Smt. Shashi Sharma……….Member.

                   Sh.Anil Sharma ………..Member.

                  

Present:-       Sh.S.S.Moonak Advocate for the complainant.

                   OP No.1 and 2 ex parte.

                   Sh.Vikas Kashyap Advocate for OP No.3.

ORDER:

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, on the averments that complainant purchased mobile iphone-5 black colour 16 GB, EMEI No.01341900-7375972, Sr.No. C32JWF4PDTWD, vide Invoice No.39747 dated 27.5.2013, for a sum of Rs.43000/-, from Opposite Party ( in short OP) No.1. The said iphone carried warranty for one year. After some time of the purchase of the mobile phone, fault developed in the same. He visited the OP no.1 and reported regarding the fault, but no proper response was given by the Op no.1. Ultimately, on 30.4.2014,  OP no.1 advised him to approach OP No.2 and accordingly he  presented the iphone in the office of OP no.2 and gave details about defects. OP no.2 found the defects as mentioned in the job card dated 30.4.2014.He was advised  to leave the iphone at the premises of OP no.2 for necessary repairs. Accordingly, he left the iphone with OP no.2 for repairs or replacement, but the officials of OP No.2  told that iphone was  opened outside,  whereas the said fact was incorrect, because he had never given the iphone to any other shop or service centre except OP No.2. It appears that officials of OP no.1 and 2 were making false and lame excuses to avoid repair/replacement of the iphone. Ops had neither repaired nor   replaced the iphone despite repeated requests and the same is lying with OP No.2. The matter was also brought to the notice of OP no.3, but no action was taken. In this way, there was deficiency in services and unfair trade practice on the part of Ops, which caused mental agony to him apart from financial loss.

 

2.                Notice of the complaint was given the Ops .None put into appearance on behalf of OP No.1 despite service, therefore, exparte proceedings were initiated, vide order dated 13.10.2014.

 

3.                Written statement of OP No.2 was received through registered post. It has been submitted that  Apple offer  free of cost service to any  hardware failure in its Products in warranty, which a customer can avail from any of the nearby service centre through out India .There is no binding to go back to the same place where it was bought from.   The complaint is  required to be registered at the Apple  Care on toll Free numbers, who in turn guide the customer to his nearby service centre .   Spares against the said complaint would be supplied to the Service Centre of Customer’s choice by Apple.    The service Centers are paid for only, if any component or device is replaced.  No payment is done for the Software services or in the case of services denied to a device by Apple. The other conditions of warranty and process in service centre have also been mentioned in the written statement.

 

4.                The OP No.3 filed  separate written statement controverting the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that complaint is malafide that complainant has suppressed the material facts and that complainant has no cause of action and that complaint is bad for mis joinder of the parties.

 

                   On merits, it has been submitted that complainant approached OP no.2 on 30.4.2014.  The service report generated by OP no.2 clearly indicates that that iphone  had multiple  dents and scratches on all the four corners. After a preliminary review, the OP no.2 noticed a lot of  marks of tampering on the inside of the iphone and asked the complainant to visit after 2/3 days.  Once, the iphone was thoroughly diagnosed it was found that iphone was extensively damaged and tampered at the hands of some third party. That fact was communicated to the complainant. However, after repeated reminders by OP no.2, the complainant did not visit the OP no.2  to collect the iphone. No final report could be generated with respect to the final diagnosis. The complainant  raised unreasonable demand of securing new iphone or having a free repair despite the iphone being damaged and tampered due to tampering and damage caused to the iphone as a consequences of performing of service by a third person, who was not authorized for the same , the warranty provisions are breached and hence no benefits may be accrued  out of warranty provisions.   The warranty clause makes it abundantly clear that a product that has been damaged due to tampering is  excluded from warranty benefits. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied.

 

4.                In evidence of complainant, his affidavit Ex.CW/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C7 have been tendered.

 

5.                In evidence of OP, affidavit of Sh.Ashish Bali,  EX.DW3/A and documents Ex.DW3/1 to Ex.OW3/4 have been tendered.

 

6.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file very carefully.

7.       The complainant purchased one iphone from OP No.1 on 27.5.2013.He had approached the OP No.2 on 30.4.2014 for repair of the same. The job sheet Ex.C5 was generated by OPNo.2, which is most material document regarding the condition of the iphone, while the same was handed over by the complainant to Op no.2. A perusal of this document shows that complainant reported the problem as Sleep/wake button not working, speaker problem, call drop and display  out near sleepwake button. So far as condition of equipment is concerned there were scratches and dents on all corners. The iphone was left by the complainant with OP No.2 for repairs. The OP No.2  refused to repair or get  replaced the iphone of the complainant on the ground that same was damaged and tampered on account of performing of service by third party, who was not authorized to do such service.

 

          There is no dispute about the fact that iphone carried the warranty of one year. The iphone was purchased by the complainant on 27.5.2013 and he approached the OP no.2 with some problem in the iphone on 30.4.2013, within the period of warranty. The iphone was checked by the OP No.2, as is evident from service job sheet  Ex.C6, while taking the same in custody.  The problems pointed out by the complainant were also noted in the said job sheet. So far as diagnosis details were concerned, the same was left subject to the approval of Aple. It is important to  point out that in the said job sheet it was not mentioned by OP No.2 that iphone was tampered by some unauthorized person before the same was  produced before it by the complainant on 30.4.2014.  Had there been tampering in the iphone by some unauthorized person, then this fact must have been mentioned in the job sheet, while giving details of the condition of the iphone. Not mentioning the said tampering in the job sheet indicates that at the time when the iphone was given in the custody  OP No.2 for repairing, the same was not tampered by any third party. Therefore, objection of the Ops that warranty became void as the iphone was tampered with by performing service by some unauthorized person was an afterthought and cannot be considered as justified ground to refuse  to repair or replace the iphone of the complainant.  Presence of scratches and dents on corners of the iphone cannot amount to tampering and the learned counsel for the Ops could not point out any term or condition of warranty according to which repair or replacement can be denied on such scratches and dents. Under such circumstances, we have no hesitation in concluding that there was deficiency in services on the part of the Ops.

 

          As a sequel to the foregoing discussion, we accept the present complaint and direct the OP No.3 to repair the iphone of the complainant and if the repair is not possible then to replace the iphone of the complainant. The complainant shall also be entitled for a sum of Rs.2200/- for the mental agony and harassment caused to him and for the litigation expenses. The OP no.3 shall make the compliance of this order within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced
dated:01.12.2015                                                                         

                                                                    (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

(Anil Sharma )  (Smt.Shashi Sharma)    

    Member            Member.

 

 

Present:-       Sh.S.S.Moonak Advocate for the complainant.

                   OP No.1 and 2 ex parte.

                   Sh.Vikas Kashyap Advocate for OP No.3.

 

                   Arguments in part heard. For remaining arguments, the case is adjourned to 1.12.2015,

 

Announced
dated:16.11.2015                                                                          

                                                                    (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

(Anil Sharma )  (Smt.Shashi Sharma)    

    Member            Member.

 

 

Present:-       Sh.S.S.Moonak Advocate for the complainant.

                   OP No.1 and 2 ex parte.

                   Sh.Vikas Kashyap Advocate for OP No.3.

 

                   Remaining arguments heard. Vide our separate order of the even date, the present complaint has been accepted. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced
dated:01.12.2015                                                                          

                                                                    (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

(Anil Sharma )  (Smt.Shashi Sharma)    

    Member            Member

 

 

Present:-       Sh.S.S.Moonak Advocate for the complainant.

                   OP No.1 and 2 ex parte.

                   Sh.Vikas Kashyap Advocate for OP No.3.

 

                   Arguments in part heard. For remaining arguments, the case is adjourned to 1.12.2015.

Announced
dated:18.11.2015                                                                         

                                                                    (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

(Anil Sharma )  (Smt.Shashi Sharma)    

    Member            Member

 

Present:-       Sh.S.S.Moonak Advocate for the complainant.

                   OP No.1 and 2 ex parte.

                   Sh.Vikas Kashyap Advocate for OP No.3.

 

                   Remaining arguments heard. Vide our separate order of the even date, the present complaint has been accepted. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced
dated:1.12.2015                                                                          

                                                                    (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

(Anil Sharma )  (Smt.Shashi Sharma)    

    Member            Member