DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016
Case No.178/15
Sameer Phogaat
S/o Late Sh. Sunder Singh Phogaat
R/o 58-B/2, Humanunpur
New Delhi-110029. ….Complainant
Versus
M/s Unicorn Info Solutions Pvt. Ltd.
At B-9, 1st Floor Shivalik
Malviya Nagar
New Delhi-110017.
M/s Apple India Private Limited
19th Floor, Concorde Tower C\UB City No. 24
Vittal Mallya Road
Bangalore 560001, India
The Mobile Store
Sec-31 Main Market
Gurgaon, Haryana. ….Opposite Parties
Date of Institution : 14.07.2015
Date of Order : 17.06.2022
Coram:
Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President
Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member
Sh. U.K. Tyagi, Member
ORDER
Member: Ms. Kiran Kaushal
1. Succintly put, Complainant purchased an Apple i-phone 5C mobile handset on 06.05.2014 from the Mobile Store (OP-3) which provided a one year warranty.
2. It is stated that the mobile handset purchased had not been working properly therefore the complainant gave the handset, in question, to M/s Unicorn Info Solution Pvt. Ltd. (OP-1) for repairs. The complainant was told that OP-1 is the authorized service centre of M/s Apple India Pvt. Ltd. (OP-2). It is stated that complainant on 15.4.2015 gave the said handset for repairs to OP-1. Copy of the job sheet/service report is annexed as annexure C-2.
3. It is next stated by the complainant that OP-1 gave a refurbished phone to the complainant on 20.4.2015, after few days the said phone also started hanging and was only showing the search sign, it’s touch was not working properly hence complainant again gave the said handset on 30.4.2015 to OP-1 for repairs. On 5.5.2015 complainant went to collect his mobile handset where OP-1 told the complainant that warranty coverage is declined due to outside modification and the mobile set was dead which cannot be repaired . Complainant was advised to take back the said mobile handset. But the complainant did not take the mobile handset from OP-1. Thereafter, on the same day complainant spoke to the customer care and was informed that nothing can be done . It is stated that the said mobile handset was neither repaired nor replaced by the OPs. Thereafter complainant wrote mails to OP to get the handset repaired/replaced but all in vain.
4. Thus aggrieved, the complainant filed the present complaint in this Commission with directions to OP to pay Rs.34,400/- for damages caused to the complainant alongwith interest @18 % per annum and for directions to OP to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation for mental agony alongwith the cost of litigation.
5. OP-2 resisting the complaint stated inter-alia that the complainant initially purchase an I-phone 6 16GM Serial No.3580310592917, however, as it developed certain issues, on 20.4.2015 it was inspected by OP-1 (Service Centre). The same was replaced with a new I-phone 6 16GB Serial No.358550056742549. The complainant returned on 20.4.2015 again alleging certain issues with the replaced i-phone. OP-1 took the said i-phone back for inspecting it.
6. After inspection it was found that there were unauthorized modifications, such as device SIM tray changed, soldering near SIM card tray and therefore, OP-1 declined service of the I-phone and advised that the I-phone was beyond economical repair and out of warranty as it was tampered with and complainant was informed regarding the same. The photos taken during inspection showing the unauthorized tempering modification are annexed as annexure R-2. As the complainant had violated the terms and conditions of the warranty the said handset was out of warranty hence could not be serviced or replaced by OP-2. Therefore it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed being merit-less.
7. Rejoinder to written statement of OP-2 has been filed by the complainant. Evidence by way of affidavit and written arguments by the complainant and OP-2 are filed. Submissions made on behalf of the complainant are heard, material placed on record is perused.
8. Admittedly, complainant purchased an i-phone on 6.5.2014 for Rs.34,400/- from OP-3. The said i-phone within warranty period developed certain issues for which the handset was taken to the authorized service centre of OP-2 on 15.4.2015. On 20.4.2015 complainant was informed by OP-1 that the said handset was beyond repairs therefore it was replaced with a new handset. But the new handset was not in a sealed box. When the complainant asked for sealed box OP-1 told the complainant that as per the policy of OP company, only open sets without box are given in replacement.
9. As admitted by OP-2 and also seen from the job-sheets filed by the complainant the replaced handset developed certain problems and the complainant took the replaced handset to OP-1 on 30.4.2015 for repairs/rectification of the defects. OP-1 kept the mobile handset for rectifying the defect but on 05.05.2015 when the complainant went to collect the handset from OP-1, he was told that the replaced handset cannot be repaired or replaced as warranty of the handset was declined due to outside modification.
10. It is seen from the material placed before us that OP-1 has not given satisfactory reply as to why at the time of replacement the I-phone was not given in a sealed box with warranty card. It is also noticed that the replaced phone within ten days of receiving by the complainant developed problems whereas the initial I-phone purchased by the complainant developed problems after 9 to 10 months. We find no reason to believe that the complainant got the phone repaired from outside, as complainant must have developed full faith in OP company when the initial purchased phone was replaced. Having been provided required service at the first instance, complainant would trust the company and would rather get phone rectified from authorized service centre of OP company than go somewhere else for repairs. Rather we find it strange that the service Centre of OP Company replaced a phone and gave an unsealed box to the complainant in replacement and the said replaced phone stopped functioning within ten days of delivery.
11. OP-2 & OP-3 were proceeded ex-parte as none appeared on their behalf. OP-1 is the authorized service centre of OP-1. In view of the fact that the replaced phone was provided by OP1 in an unsealed condition, we hold the OPs deficient in service. We hold both OP-1and OP-2 jointly and severally liable for deficiency in service. OP-1 & OP-2 jointly and severally are directed to pay cost of the phone ie. Rs.34,400/- @ 6% to the complainant from the date of filing of the complainant till its within 2 months from the date of receiving of this order, failing which OP-1 and OP-2 shall pay Rs.34,400/- @ 10 % from the date of filing of the complaint till realisation.
12. File be consigned to the record room after giving a copy of the order to the parties as per rules. Order be uploaded on the website.
