This is a complaint made by one Amrita Sharma, wife of Sanjeev Sharm, residing at 10E, Tower-2, Diamond City South, Mahatma Gandhi Road, P.S. – Haridevpur, Kolkata-700 041 against (1) the Managing Director, Apple India Pvt. Ltd., 19th Floor, Concorde Tower-C, U.B.City No.24, Vittal Mallya Road, Bangalore-560 001, (2) The Managing Director, Current Technology Retail (India) Ltd., Unit No.S024, Ground floor, No.375, Prince Anwar Shah Road, P.S.-Jadavpur, Kolkata-700 068 and (3) The Proprietor, Macintel Solutions, 190 C, Rashbehari Avenue, Kolkata-700 029, praying for a direction upon the OP to refund the purchase money of Apple i-phone-6 with interest and compensation to the tune of Rs.6,00,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-.
Facts in brief are that Complainant purchased an Apple i-phone-6 from the shop of OP No.3 on 8.2.2005 on payment of Rs.62,399/- by credit card and cash. On returning to the house Complainant found that no warranty card was there in the box. On the night of 8.2.2015 the mobile set did not work. On the next date Complainant sent her representative, her husband, to the shop of OP No.3 with the defective mobile set. OP No.3 reloaded ‘ios’ software. But, the mobile was hanged. On the next morning on 10.2.2015 Complainant sent her representative again to the OP No.3. But, the grievances could not be resolved. Thereafter, Complainant contacted the customer care. On 14.2.2015 Complainant’s representative received a call from OP No.2 and informed that the defective mobile set has been repaired and the same is working properly and asked him to collect the mobile. On 16.2.2015 Complainant’s husband visited the OP No.2 to collect the mobile and found that the mobile was suffering from the same problem and so he refused to receive the defective mobile. Thereafter, several communications were made. But the problem could not be solved. So, Complainant filed this case.
OP No.2 filed written version and denied all the allegations. Further, this OP has stated that when there is a manufacturing defect all the OPs cannot be made liable and Complainant has to contact OP No.1 who is the manufacturer. On these grounds this OP prayed for dismissal of this case.
OP No.1 has also filed written version and denied the allegations of the complaint. Further, OP No.1 has stated that the Complainant did not use the mobile set in a proper manner and the mobile which was sold was not defective. So, this OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
Decision with reasons:
Complainant filed affidavit-in-chief wherein he has stated the facts which he has mentioned in the complaint petition. Against this, OPs have also filed evidence on affidavit. Written arguments have been filed.
Main point for determination is whether Complainant is entitled to the reliefs which he has prayed for.
On perusal of the order sheet, it appears that OP No.2 has filed questionnaire against the affidavit-in-chief filed by the Complainant to which Complainant has replied.
Now, the question is whether OPs sold a defective mobile to the Complainant.
Prayer (a) of the complaint petition is refund of the purchase money. It is the grievance of the Complainant that he is not in a position to return the mobile and so it should be returned and the amount which he paid be refunded. On the contrary, OPs by their written statement and affidavit-in-chief have stated that the mobile set was repaired and the question of returning of the mobile set does not arise and the amount cannot be ordered to be refunded.
On perusal of the Xerox copy of the receipt, it appears that Amrita Sharma purchased it on 8.2.2015 and she has alleged that since that date the defect was detected in the mobile. HHowever, the receipt reflects that warranty terms and conditions is as per manufacturing warranty provided along with the product or as mentioned in the manufacturer’s website. Complainant has not submitted warranty card on the ground that he did not receive it. However, on perusal of the receipt, it appears that the warranty terms and conditions are as per manufacturer’s warranty mentioned I n the manufacturer’s website also. In such circumstances, the Complainant was bound to file the warranty paper taking from the website.
Complainant has submitted certain papers showing the correspondences which reveal that there was some defect in the phone. As such, we are of the view that if the price paid by the Complainant is ordered to be refunded on condition that to return the mobile, by which all justices could be served.
Further, Complainant cannot be entitled for any compensation or litigation cost. It is because during the argument it appeared that the Complainant did not take pain to submit warranty card.
From the website it appears that warranty was of one year and this complaint has been filed after one year. But, since correspondences are there to show that there was some defect in the phone, it becomes the obligation of the OP to refund the price after taking the mobile phone. Tax, service charges and other charges cannot be ordered to be refunded.
Hence,
ordered
CC/101/2016 and the same is allowed in part. OPs are directed to refund the price of the mobile phone which Complainant paid within two months of this order on return of the mobile phone to the OPs.
