DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016
Case No. 31/2016
Mr. Nipun Parashar
R/o F-73, Near Girls Secondary School,
Ladosarai, New Delhi-110030 ….Complainant
Versus
1. Tresor Systems Pvt. Ltd.
Shop No.144, Ground Floor,
DLF South Court Saket,
New Delhi-110017
2. Customer Support Apple
India Private Limited
19th Floor Concorde Tower “C” UB City,
No.24 , Vitalmallya Road, Bangalore-560001
Karnataka
3. iWorld Business Solutions
Pvt. Ltd. F-110 1st Floor,
Ambience Mall, Ambience Island,
Near Toll Plaza, NH-8,
Gurgaon-122001, Haryana. ….Opposite Parties
Date of Institution : 01.02.16 Date of Order : 19.11.19
Coram:
Ms. Rekha Rani, President
Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member
ORDER
Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member
- Succinctly put, the complainant purchased a mobile phone 5S 16GB Gold (Apple) from iWorld Business Solutions (OP No.3) on 18.01.15. The phone starting having some problem on 17.09.15, therefore it was taken to the nearest authorized service station of Apple i.e. Tresor Systems Pvt. Ltd., hereinafter referred to as OP No.1.
- The complainant avers that on 17.09.2015 when the complainant visited OP No.1 he was told that OP No.1 will have to clean the device. After attending to the device the silence button which was the problem in the mobile got rectified but the complainant on reaching home found that the phone was struck on the Apple logo and was not moving ahead. The complainant again rushed back to the service centre which was closed by that time. It is next averred that the complainant again went to the service centre on 18.09.2015 and he was told by OP No.1 that the phone needs to be sent to the Screening Centre. On 19.09.2015 the complainant was told that the device was found damaged internally.
- It is next averred that on 21.09.2015 the phone was returned to the complainant which had two more glitches/new problems. The complainant refused to take the phone with these additional problems. It is after 3 days OP No.1 denied any repairs for the device stating that the device was opened by a third party dealer within the warranty period.
- It is further averred that the complainant tried convincing OP No.1 that the phone was mishandled at their service centre/screening centre and probably the parts of the phone had been compromised with but OP No.1 paid no heed to his grievance. Hence, the present complaint with the following prayers:
- Provide a replacement for the device with minimum equal or more configuration as the device that the complainant had.
- Provide extended warranty for the replaced device.
- Pay Rs.15000/- towards physical and mental strain and agony suffered by the complainant and his family members (compensation.
- Pay a sum of Rs.2000/- for the litigation charges and petition charges.
- No written statement was filed on behalf of OP No.1 and OP No.3.
- OP No.2 resisted the complaint inter-alia stating that as per the warranty policy of OP No.2, some of the provisions which are excluded are unauthorized modification/tempering/damage which is the case in the present matter. OP No.2 has annexed its Warranty Provisions as Annexure R-1. OP No.2 further submits that the complaints regarding its product are addressed to Apple Authorized Service Provider in this case it is OP No.1. OP No.1 as per norms inspected the product, diagnosed the issues and mentioned all its observations in the service report. It is next submitted that OP No.1 informed the complainant that the I-Phone was out of warranty service due to tampering by unauthorized persons, therefore as per the policy I-Phone was beyond repair and not covered under the warranty. OP No.1 confirmed that the device had failed the screening test, this means that the product had been opened and the failure was caused by an external source. Hence, it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed being meritless.
- Complainant has filed rejoinder and evidence by way of affidavit. Evidence by way of affidavit of Shri Priyesh Poovanna, Country Legal Counsel is filed on behalf of OP-2.
- Written arguments are filed on behalf of the complainant and OP No.2.
- Submissions made by the parties are heard and material placed on record is perused carefully.
- Complainant has filed the retail invoice dated 18.01.2015 of Apple I-Phone 5S 16 GB Gold wherein Rs.44,500/- has been paid to OP No.3 on 18.01.2015. Further the complainant in support of his case has annexed service report dated 18.09.15 wherein the diagnoses details are reproduced as under:-
“Device Stuck in DFU Mode not getting restored need to send the device to the screening centre.
Service receive by screening centre unit fail in screening center (Component broken)”
- It is clear by the service report issued by OP No.1 dated 18.09.2015 that the phone failed to clear the screening test and broken component was found in the screening centre. Thereafter, the matter was closed by OP-1 and the complainant was informed accordingly. The inference drawn from service report is that the complainant’s phone had been tampered with by an external source which is against the provisions of the warranty given by OP. The bald allegations made by the complainant that device either has some manufacturing defect or it was tampered with by the seller or it has been damaged by the service centre is not enough to prove his case. No documentary evidence has been adduced by the complainant regarding the same. Moreover, the complainant after having used the phone for 8 months without any problem, now cannot claim that the phone had same manufacturing defect. Hence the complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs.
- However, OP No.1 is directed to return the device to the complainant as and when the complainant approaches for the same.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on 19.11.19
