Date of Filing:01/07/2015
Date of Order:18/05/2016
BEFORE THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SHANTHINAGAR BANGALORE - 27.
Dated: 18TH DAY OF MAY 2016
PRESENT
SRI.SYED ANSER KHALEEM, B.SC., B.Ed.,LL.B.,PRESIDENT
SRI.H.JANARDHAN,B.A.L, LL.B., MEMBER
SMT.BHARATI.B.VIBHUTE, B.E(I.P.) LL.B., MEMBER
COMPLAINT NO.1232/2015
Sri M. Shivaprakash,
S/o Narayan Rao,
Aged about 53 years,
Office at M/s Prakash Constructions
No 343, Sampige Plaza,
Malleshwaram,
Bangalore-560 003. …. Complainant
V/s
1. The Manager,
Infinite Limited Trading as Croma,
Synconpolaris, Ground and First Floor,
No 1/58, 8th Main, RMV Extension,
Sadashivnagar
Bangalore-560 080.
2. The Manager,
Croma, Office at No 2/1,
Akrati Centre Point,
MIDC, Andheri East,
Bangalore-400093.
3. The Manager,
Croma Bombay House,
No 24, Hami Modi Street,
Mumbai-400001 …. Opposite Party
ORDER
BY SMT.BHARATI.B.VIBHUTE, MEMBER
1. The complainant has filed this complaint U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred in short as O.Ps) alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps and prays for direction to the O.P to replace the original IPhone/Apple Phone by receiving back the old duplicate phone or to refund the bill amount of Rs.45,000/- with interest of Rs 18% and to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental, physical and financial loss and agony and the cost of the proceedings.
2. The brief facts of the complaint is that, the complainant was purchased an Apple IPhone 5S having 16GB Gold Serial No 352037062559949 Part code No 180363 worth Rs.44,500/- along with Apple IPhone 5S case black being part code No 180440 being Rs 1000/- in total comes to Rs 45,500/- from the O.P No 1 vide bill dated 24.11.2014. On 17.1.2015 the complainant went to O.P No 1 show room and got the securitized lock, but due to mishandling of phone by representative O.P No 1 the phone got disabled and the same fact was brought to the notice of O.P No 1 on 18.01.2015. O.P No 1 instructed the complainant to contact IPhone service outlet and as per instruction of O.P No 1 the complainant met Mrs Anila at Mantra Square, Malleshwaram and thereafter she advised the complainant that the phone cannot be repaired as it has become unusable and she informed that the phone has not been purchased in their shop and informed that it cannot be rectified and also informed that O.P No 1 is not the authorized dealer for sale of Apple Phone Products. On 19.1.2015 the complainant contacted Apple care and discussed with Mr Shekar, Senior Advisor of Apple Care and upon the instruction of Mr Shekar and Ishita the complainant visited the service outlet and as per the advice of Mrs Anila the complainant sent the scanned copy of original Bill and upon receipt of the scan copy they registered the complaint of the complainant with case No. 733110709 and thereafter there was communication between Anila and the complainant. Finally the Apple Company Executive informed the complainant that the phone which was purchased is not an original IPhone/Apple product and O.P No 1 is not an authorized dealer to sell IPhone/Apple product and informed that the product is a duplicate/China set and not an original IPhone set.
3. The complainant approached the O.P No.1 immediately and informed regarding the situation and the rejection made by Apple care. The O.P No.1 instead of accepting the guilt tried to convince the complainant as if the mobile purchased is an original Apple set and they do not tried to give original IPhone set or the bill amount. The complainant issued a legal notice, but the O.Ps did not respond to the legal notice. Hence this complaint.
4. Upon issuance of notice, O.P. No.1 appeared through their counsel and filed its version, however the complainant by filing the memo prayed to delete the O.P.No.2 and 3 from the proceedings and accordingly O.P.No.2 and 3 were deleted from the proceedings.
5. In the version of O.P.No.1 contended that, the complaint is false, misconceived, frivolous, baseless, bad, vexatious and not maintainable. Also contended that the complaint is bad for mis-joinder of parties. O.P cannot be held in any manner responsible for any defect in the manufacturing only manufacturer is direct responsible, O.P. No.1 is not involved in manufacturing but involved in assembling and packing. OP No.1 is a retailer involved the business of retail selling of electronic goods. O.P.No.1 involved in buying of various electronic products from different manufacturers bulk and selling the products to customers by order basis. O.P.No.1 admitted that, the complainant approached him to avail assistance in respect of the said technical issue with regard to the said phone. The O.P.No.1 informed the complainant to approach service center of the manufacturer. O.P.No.1 denies that its representative mishandled the product. The complainant on 24.1.2015 had informed the O.P.No.1 that the phone is disabled by its representative. O.P.No.1 collected the product from the complainant and issued GAN#BLR240115WS0003 and tried to the resolve the software issue, the O.P. No.1 required certain information like Apple ID, Password, Security questions and answer, the complainant has informed that he has forgotten the details. The O.P. advised complainant to visit the Apple service center as they could provide necessary assistance and returned the product. The service centre expressed the inability to resolve the issue unless the complainant shares the ID and password. The service centre provided alternative solutions to the complainant that the product need to be reset and all data stored in the product would be erased and process would take 10 to 15 days. The complainant asked the service center to rectify the product within two days and threatened to take legal action. Service center expressed its inability to resolve the problem unless the complainant provide required information.
6. O.P.No.1 contends that, he has valid agreement with apple and he is the reseller of the Apple products. The product purchased is the original and it is purchased from authorized distributor of Apple India. On other grounds O.P.No.1 prays for dismissal of the complaint.
7. To substantiate the above case, the complainant has filed the affidavit evidence along with documents. We have heard the arguments.
8. On the basis of pleadings of the complainant, the following points will arise for our considerations are:-
(A) Whether the complainant has proved
deficiency in service on the part of the O.P?
(B) Whether the complainant is entitled to the
relief prayed for in the complaint?
(C) What order?
7. Our answers to the above points are:-
POINT (A) and (B) : In the Affirmative.
POINT (C): As per the final order
for the following:
REASONS
POINT No (A) and B:-
8. On perusal of the pleadings of the complaint and reading conjunctively along with the documents produced by the complainant, it is an undisputed fact that the complainant purchased the Apple iPhone 5S having 16GB Gold Serial No 352037062559949 Part Code No 180363 worth Rs.44,500/- along with Apple iPhone 5S case black being part code No 180440 being Rs 1000/- in total comes to Rs 45,500/- from the O.P No 1 vide bill dated 24.11.2014.
9. The allegations of the complainant is that, to resolve the lock problem, the complainant approached the O.P.No.1 but the O.P.No.1 sent him to the service center in order to get resolved the problem. Whereas, the service center ultimately, given back the phone but the complainant has not purchased phone in question from the authorized dealer and it is not the original product. Hence the complainant approached the O.P.No.1 either to resolve the issue or to refund the amount. However, O.P.No.1 being a service provider neither repair the phone nor repaid the amount.
10. Per-contra, O.P.No.1 himself submitted that, he is selling bulk of electronic goods from different manufacturers and he has also having authorized agreement to sell in respect of the phone in question. However, the O.P.No.1 did not place suitable documents in order to show that he is the authorized dealer to deal the product. For the arguments sake it is accepted, if there is an agreement then also the O.P.No.1 being the service provider by receiving the Apple iphone has to send to the concerned service center in order to resolve the issue and not doing so, obviously it attracts deficiency in service. On perusing the entire evidence on record and contentions raised in the version, the O.P.No.1 intends to wash away the hands from its liability. On perusal of the copy of invoice, it is evident that the complainant purchased the mobile phone in question for Rs.45,000/- and it is not disputed by the O.P.No.1 also.
11. In the attendance circumstances of the case, we deem it just and proper to direct the O.P.No.1 to refund the entire amount of Rs.45,000/- to the complainant with cost of Rs.2,000/- it will meets the ends of justice. Accordingly, we answer Point No.(A) and (B) in the affirmative.
POINT (C):
12. On the basis of the findings given above on the point No.(A) and (B) and in the result, we proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER
- The complaint is allowed-in-part with cost.
- The O.P.No.1 i.e. Infinite Limited Trading as Croma represented by its Manager/Authorized Signatory is hereby directed to refund a sum of Rs.45,500/- to the complainant by receiving back the defective Apple Iphone from the complainant.
- The O.P No.1 is also directed to pay Rs.2,000/- towards the cost of the proceedings.
- The O.P.No.1 is hereby directed to comply the order of this Forum within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and submit the compliance report to this forum within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order.
- Send a copy of this order to both parties free of cost.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this the 18th Day of May 2016)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
*Rak
