DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSSAL FORUM

WEST TRIPURA :  AGARTALA

 

 

CASE   NO:   CC- 08 of 2017

 

 

Sri Uttam Kumar Nandi,

S/O- Lt. Sankar Nandi,

of Santirbazar, P.O. P.S. Santirbazar,

South Tripura. ....…...Complainant.

 

        VERSUS

 

1. The Proprietor,

Mobile Store, Gulmohar House,

Bidurkarta Chowmuhani,

Agartala, Tripura West,

 

2. Macintel Solutions,

Apple Authorized Service Provider,

Guwahati- 563, Sodd Villa, 1st Floor,

Christian Basti, G.S. Road, 

Guwahati- 781005. .........Opposite parties.

 

      __________PRESENT__________

 

 SRI A. PAL,

PRESIDENT,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  

DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

SMT. Dr. G. DEBNATH

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

SRI U. DAS

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

 

C  O  U  N  S  E  L

 

For the Complainant : Sri Arindam Lodh,

 Sri Sumit Debnath,

 Advocates.

 

For the O.Ps : Sri Pradip Chakraborty,

 Sri Sujit Chakraborty,

 Advocate.

 

 

JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON:   11.07.2017.

 

J U D G M E N T

 

This case arises on the petition filed by one Uttam Kumar Nandi U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. Petitioner's case in short is that on 18.05.16 he purchased one iphone (Apple Mobile Set) from the shop of O.P. No.1, Mobile Store, Gulmohar House, Agartala. After few days of purchase he noticed some dark spot in the display screen. So, he went to the O.P. No.1, the seller for changing the set. The Proprietor became annoyed and asked him to send the mobile set to authorized service centre at Guwahati. Accordingly the mobile set was sent to Guwahati. iphone was covered with the warranty and he received the service report. In the service report it was written that the display was not working due to pressure(physical damage) and it is not covered with warranty. He was asked to pay Rs.19,700/- for repairing. The matter of physical pressure as informed is totally false. Only to avoid the responsibility service centre stated this fact. Complainant suffered mentally due to such loss  and deficiency of service of O.P. and he claimed Rs.50,000/- from the service centre and the proprietor.

 

2. O.P. No.1, the owner and the seller of the mobile set appeared, filed W.S denying the claim. It is stated that as per service centre diagnosis it is as case of physical damage. As per Apple norms physical damage is not covered under warranty. So  Mecintel Solutions, service centre demanded the amount. Seller had no role to that. 

 

3. O.P. No.2 did not appear and case against O.P. No.2 proceeded exparte.

 

4. On the basis of assertion denial made by the parties following points up for determination:

(I) Whether the Apple mobile set was defective at the time of sell or damaged by mishandling?

(II) Whether petitioner is entitled to get compensation for deficiency of service by the O.Ps.?

 

5. Complainant side produced  bill, iphone information slip, Apple product Pre-Receiving Form, photocopy of demand notice, reply.

 

6. Petitioner also submitted the statement on affidavit of one witness i.e., the complainant of the case, Uttam Kumar Nandi. 

 

7. O.P. side produced copy of warranty letter, advocate's notice, reply to notice.

 

8. O.P. also produced the statement on affidavit of one Sananda Saha.  

 

9. On the basis of all the evidence on record we shall now determine the above points.

 

 

Findings and decision;

10. We have gone through the one year warranty summary issued by the Apple. Carry-in service is provided and Apple product may be returned to the Apple Retail of AASP location. Service will be performed at the location. The retailer may send the Apple product to Apple Repair Service. Mobile was purchased on 18.05.16 and its price was Rs.25,300/-. The voucher produced supports this fact. After 4 months of the use the problem started. Dark spot in the display screen was seen. On 13.09.16 petitioner handed over the set to O.P. No.1, the seller for repairing. The proprietor sent the mobile phone to the Guwahati service centre and after one month it was informed that due to physical damage and pressure the iphone damaged. It was not covered by warranty and Rs.19,700/- was required to repair the display screen. Report of the service centre in this regard not produced by the parties. No documents produced to support that actually the seller sent the iphone to the service centre at all. Only advocate's notice and one postal receipt dated 31.12.16 is produced. This postal receipt is in regard to notice sent to Indrajit Biswas, Advocate. O.P. No.1, seller fails to establish that he rendered proper service.

 

11. One photocopy of Service Report and Certificate by Solution Expert, service provider is produced. From that it is found that the iphone was received by the service centre on 22.09.16. As per service centre diagnosis due to pressure display was effected and there was liquid damage which is not covered under the warranty. The display is to be replaced under out of warranty process but nowhere Rs.19,700/-, the repairing cost is claimed. The engineers report in support of liquid damage also not produced. How the service centre ascertained that due to physical damage display was effected also not explained at all. The service centre person did not appear to support their contention. It appears that only to avoid the responsibility the service centre person has given the certificate about physical damage. The product was received by the Gulmohar House, Mobile Store, on 13.09.16 as seen from the receiving form. Service report was given that scratches were found & it is written in the report that phone will be covered under out of warranty as pressure (physical) damage. 

 

12. In our considered view the service centre had the total negligence and they did not repair or tried to repair only to avoid their responsibility. They stated that it was physical damage. The iphone was under warranty as because after 4 months it was not working. So petitioner is entitled to get back the price of the mobile phone as the company is not made party. So, the seller, O.P. No.1 should take back the iphone and replace it making correspondence with the manufacturer. O.P. No.2, the authorized service centre was very negligent in providing their service. For their negligence and deficiency of service they are to pay the amount of Rs.20,000/- to the petitioner for mental agony. Both the points are decided accordingly.

 

13. In view of our above findings over the points we direct the O.P. No.1, Proprietor to take back the defective mobile phone, make contact with the manufacturer for replacement of the iphone as it was within warranty period. We direct the O.P. No.2, Macintel Solutions to pay Rs.20,000/- to the petitioner as compensation. Payment is to be made within one month, if not paid it will carry interest @ 9% P.A.

 

Announced.

 

 

 

 

SRI A. PAL

PRESIDENT,

DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL FORUM,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

 

 

 

SMT. DR. G. DEBNATH,

MEMBER,

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL FORUM, 

WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA SRI U. DAS

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.