Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/541/2015

Manju Rani - Complainant(s)

Versus

The M.D., Apple India Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

In person

29 Jan 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

 

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/541/2015
Date of Institution	:	14/08/2015
Date of Decision	:	29/01/2016

 

 

Manju Rani r/o 155, Sector 22-A, Chandigarh

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

1.     The M.D., Apple India Pvt. Ltd., 19^th Floor, Concorde Tower C, UB City, No.24, Vittal Mallya Road, Bangalore 560001, India.

2.     The M.D., Infiniti Retail Ltd. (Croma), Unit No.701 & 702, 7^th Floor, Kaledonia, Sahar Road, Andheri East, Mumbai 400069.

3.     The M.D., Paramatrix Info Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Paramatrix Info Solutions Pvt. Ltd., S.C.O 112 & 113, Sector 34A, Chandigarh-160022.

……Opposite Parties

 

 

QUORUM:	JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU	PRESIDING MEMBER
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                       

ARGUED BY	:	Complainant in person
	:	Sh. Vinay Kumar Pandey, Counsel for OP-1
	:	None for OP-2
	:	Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Counsel for OP-3

                       

PER JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, PRESIDING MEMBER

1.         Ms. Manju Rani, complainant has filed this consumer complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the M.D. Apple India Pvt. Ltd. and others, Opposite Parties (hereinafter called the OPs), alleging that on 16.8.2014, she bought an apple iPad mini wi-fi Spc grey from Croma Store Location, Chandigarh, but, the same started giving some display problem in December 2014. The complainant contacted the retail store and after operating/checking they informed that there was no problem.  However, in March 2015, the iPad again started giving the same problem for which she again contacted the retail store (Croma) from where she was directed to contact OP-3. When the complainant contacted OP-3, it refused to repair the iPad without payment, though the same was in guarantee/warranty period.  Alleging that the aforesaid act amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP, the complainant has filed the instant complaint. 
2.         In its written reply/version OP-1 has averred that the complainant never visited OP-3 and without physical inspection of the iPad, a service report could not be generated by OP-3.  It has been stated that in the absence of any defects/problems identified by OP-3, the question of OP-1 addressing the same did not arise. It has been averred that the complainant has not provided any evidence of OP-3 rejecting her complaint to repair the iPad.  Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, OP-1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint qua it. 
3.         In its separate written reply, OP-2 has admitted that the iPad in question was sold by it.  However, it has been averred that the role of OP-2 was merely to sell the products available in its outlet to the customers and/or clients.  For after sale services, OP-2 was to refer all the complaints, if any, to the manufacturers and follow up with them and try to resolve the same at the earliest possible date, therefore, OP-2 cannot be held liable in any manner.  Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, OP-2 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint qua it. 
4.         In its separate written reply, OP-3 has denied that the complainant ever approached it and it refused to repair her iPad. It has further been denied that it demanded money to repair the iPad. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, OP-3 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint qua it.
5.         In rejoinder, the complainant has controverted the stand of the OPs and reiterated her own.
6.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
7.         We have gone through the record and heard the arguments addressed by the complainant in person and learned Counsel for the contesting OPs. 
8.         The complainant who had purchased one Apple I-pad Mini on 16.8.2014 as per Annexure C-1 has alleged that within few months of its purchase it started to give some problem which was brought to the knowledge of OP-3 at the instance of OP-2.  OP-3 after checking the same returned to the complainant claiming that the same is working alright, however, after a few months the same problem again re-occurred, but, OP-3 did not do the needful and kept on delaying the matter.  It is also alleged that OP-3 disclosed that the I-pad in question would be serviced only on payment and it refused to repair it without payment even though the same was under warranty terms and conditions. 
9.         The OPs have denied the allegations of the complainant citing one reason or the other whereas OP-1 the manufacturer of the I-pad in question has even gone to the extent of claiming that the complainant did not bring the I-pad in question to its service centre i.e. OP-3 and as such without any proof of the denial of repair of the I-pad in question, the claim of the complainant is false and for which no deficiency in service can be laid at its doorsteps. 
10.         The complainant has placed on record communications dated 9^th & 10^th June, 2015 in which it is abundantly clear that the complainant has raised the matter with OP-1 and in reply to which OP-1 having acknowledged the receipt of communication dated 9.6.2015 it was promised that its team would check and assist him accordingly though no follow up action was taken by OP-1 compelling the complainant to file the present complaint.  It is necessary to mention here that OP-1 instead of coming forward to look into the matter during the proceedings and checked the handset in question so as to ascertain the fault and its remedy, preferred to take high ground claiming that the complainant has failed to prove his visits to OPs 2 & 3 in any manner and in the absence of having presented the I-pad in question to the service centre the complainant cannot claim any deficiency in service against OP-1.
11.         It is a normal practice with all the mobile companies that as and when a handset is presented to any of their service centres, a job card is generated, copy of which is given to the customer and whether the work is done or not done the copy of job card is taken back at the time of handing over the mobile handset, thus leaving no documentary evidence in the hands of the customer on the basis of which he can take cudgels against such company on account of deficiency in service on their part. Therefore, the arguments of OP-1 on this score sound hollow as it had not disclosed whether at the time of filing of its reply it had sought the details of the visit of customers at the outlet of OP-3.  The present complaint of the complainant which is duly supported by her affidavit is a sufficient proof of her visit to the premises of OP-3 and even the act of not coming forward to repair the I-pad in question by OP-1 certainly amounts to deficiency in service on its part for which the complainant deserves to be adequately compensated for.
12.         In view of the foregoing conclusions, the act of OP-1 in not repairing the I-pad in question which was within warranty period amounts to deficiency in service on its part. The present complaint deserves to be allowed qua it and the same is allowed qua it and dismissed qua OPs 2 & 3 for the reason that OP-1 alone is answerable for all the acts of omission and commission of its dealer and service centre i.e. OPs 2 & 3. 
13.         OP-1 is directed as under :-

(i)     To refund Rs.17,900/- the invoice price as per Annexure C-1 and take back the faulty handset in question from the complainant.

(ii)    To pay consolidated amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.10,000/- on account of deficiency in service and causing mental agony and harassment.

14.         This order be complied with by OP-1 within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy failing which it shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) of para 13 above, with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint till realization.
15.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-
29/01/2016	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Jaswinder Singh Sidhu]
hg	Member	Presiding Member