DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 21st day August, 2023
Present : Sri.Vinay Menon V., President
: Sri.Krishnankutty N.K., Member Date of filing 27/04/2022
CC/73/2022
Rasmi Krishnan,
W/o Anoop Kumar,
Niyathi, Kallekulangara,
Railway Colony,
Palakkad -678009 - Complainant.
(By Adv.M/s. Anoop Chempath &Vanitha G.)
V/s
1. The Chennai Mobiles,
Hasco Tower,
No. 52/57,9 to 16,
Malampuzha Road Junction,
Olavakkode, Palakkad -678 002
Represented by its Manager.
(By Adv. Sandhya.V.)
2. Ample Technologies Pvt. Ltd,
GS19,Ground Floor,
Sobha City Mall,
Puzhakkal, Thrissur -680 013.
Represented by its Managing Director.
3. I Planet,
Consolidated Pvt. Ltd.,
No. 186,Bashyakarlu Road,
R. S. Puram West,
Coimbatore -641002, Tamil Nadu,
Represented by It's Managing Director.
4. Apple India Pvt. Ltd,
UB City, 19th Floor,
Concorde Tower -C,
Vittal Mallya Road, - Opposite parties
Bengaluru -560001.
(OPs 2-4,Ex-parte)
O R D E R
By Sri.Krishnankutty.N.K., Member.
1. Pleadings of the Complainant.
The complainant purchased an i phone 12 Apple 64 GB black mobile phone manufactured by OP 4 from the OP 1 Dealer on 27/04/2021 for Rs. 80290/-. The warranty period for the device is one year. The phone started giving complaints such as automatic switch off and switch on from 15/08/2021 onwards ie. within 4 months of purchase. Hence the complainant was not able to use the phone properly.
Inspite of seeking support from OPs 1,2,3&4 repeatedly, the problems persisted. According to her, the phone is having manufacturing defect, which is the reason for the malfunctioning of the same. Hence this complaint is filed seeking replacement of the phone or refund of the cost along with a compensation of Rs. 400,000/-&cost.
2. Notices were issued to the opposite parties. OP1 entered appearance and filed version. Their contention is that they are only the dealers of OP 4 and hence their responsibility is only to ensure the delivery of the product in good condition at the time of sale and after sales service is to be taken care of by OP 4,the manufacturer and OPs 2&3, the authorised service centres established by OP 4. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on their part. OPs2-4 didn't enter appearance and hence were set ex-parte.
3. Following issues were framed on the basis of the pleadings of the complainant and OPs.
1. Whether the complainant has succeeded in proving the manufacturing defect and substandard quality of the product as alleged by her?
2.Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of OPs in not resolving
the issues in the phone /replacing the phone, when the product is under
warranty?
3.Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part
of OPs?
4.Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs claimed?
5.Reliefs if any, cost & compensation.
4. The complainant filed proof affidavit and marked Ext. A1 to A7 as evidence. Marking of all the documents were objected to on the ground that they are photocopies. As this Commission is not bound by Indian Evidence Act and as there was no allegation that they are forged or concocted documents, the objection is overruled. Ext A1 is the tax invoice of the phone purchased, A2, is the repair acceptance form issued by OP2, A3 is the service report by OP2,A4 is the service report by OP2,A5 and A6 are the invoices issued by OP 3 and A7 is a series of email communications between the complainant and OPs.
Issue 1, 2&3
5. The Ext. A2 &A3 issued by OP2 clearly show that the i-phone developed serious defects viz. "Not powering on" on 16/06/2021 ie. within just 4 months of purchase and during the warranty period of the product (As per the pleadings and proof affidavit filed by the complainant) though warranty document is not marked as evidence. The complainant didn't take any steps to get an expert appointed to examine the device and certify that the product is having serious manufacturing defects.
However, from the evidence adduced it is clear that the issues developed immediately after the purchase and remained unresolved even after escalating the matter several times even to OP4. A high end phone manufactured by a global brand like OP4 developing serious complaints immediately after purchase and the inability of their authorised service centres to fix the same can happen only because of manufacturing defect of the product. In this context, it is pertinent to mention that the OPs 2 to 4 didn't bother to defend their case by participating in the proceedings of this case, which can be taken as an admission of the deficiency on their part.
The website of OP4 also admit that a certain percentage of i-phone12 are having issues as follows "Apple has determined that a very small percentage of i-Phone12 and i-Phone12 Pro devices may experience sound issues due to a component that might fail on the receiver module" The said admission is given in the link From what is stated above it is evident that the OPs couldn't resolve the defects of the phone as per the warranty terms. Further they didn't provide a replacement for the defective phone when they failed to rectify the defects to the satisfaction of the complainant. This amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
6. As the deficiency in service is proved as above, the complainant is entitled to the following reliefs.
- The complainant is entitled to get replacement of the phone with a device of same model and specifications or refund of the entire cost of Rs.80290/-along with interest @10%pa from the date of purchase till the date of payment.
- The complainant is also entitled to get a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for mental agony and
- Rs. 25000/- as cost.
As the OPs 2&3 are only the authorised service centers of OP4,they are exonerated from the liability.
Though the OP1 can't be made accountable for the manufacturing defects and related service issues, they are the first contact point for any consumer. Hence they should also be involved in redressing the grievance of the complainant.
In the result, the OP1 is hereby directed to comply with the orders of this Commission and get the amounts reimbursed from OP4 during their ordinary course of business.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 21st day August, 2023.
Sd/-
Vinay Menon V
President
Sd/- Krishnankutty N.K.
Member
Appendix
Documents marked from the side of complainant :
Ext. A1: Sale invoice issued by OP1 dated. 27/04/2021.
Ext. A2: Repair acceptance form issued by OP2 dated. 26/08/2021.
Ext. A3: Service Report issued by OP2 dated. 31/08/2021.
Ext. A4: Service Report issued by OP2 dated 24/04/2022.
Ext. A5: Invoice issued by OP3 dated07/10/2022.
Ext. A6: Invoice issued by OP3 dated 28/09/2022.
Ext. A7: A series of email communications between the complainant &OPs.
Documents marked from the side of the opposite party :Nil
Witness examined -Nil
Cost :Rs. 25000/-
NB: Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.
