Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/703/2021

Naseem Rana Enterprises - Complainant(s)

Versus

Unicorn Info Solutions Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Yoginder Nagpal

01 Aug 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

Naseem Rana Enterprises at VPO Mullanpur Garibdass, Kharar, Mohali also at H.No.1422, Sector 38-W, Chandigarh

......Complainant

VERSUS

1. Unicorn Info Solutions Pvt Ltd, SCO 315-316, Ground Floor, Sector 35- B, Chandigarh.

2. I crescent SCO 1015, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh, 7900000730.

3. Apple India, 19th Floor, Concorde Tower C, UB City No.24, Vittal Mallya Road, Bangalore-560001, Bangalore.

Opposite Parties

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1. The present consumer complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 against the opposite parties  (hereinafter referred to as the OPs). The brief facts of the case are as under :-

1. It transpires from the averments as projected in the consumer complaint that  on 25.3.2021 the complainant purchased a Apple I-phone 12  with specification of 128GB/BlueMGJE3HN/A for Rs.81900/- including GST (hereinafter referred to be as subject handset) from OP No.2 vide invoice Exhibit C-1. After few months of usage of the subject handset, the complainant noticed shades/flickering coming on rear camera  and on 23.8.2021 the complainant brought this fact to the notice of OP No.2  from whom the subject handset was purchased. On this, the subject handset was entrusted to OP No.1 i.e. the service centre  who in turn issued service receipt dated 23.8.2021  to the complainant with expected delivery  of flawless phone fixing of problem on 1.9.2021. At that time the subject handset was within warranty period and the service report is annexed as Exhibit C-2. However to the utter shock and surprise of the complainant when he approached OP No.1 for collection  of his subject handset, instead of delivering  the same, OP No.1  started accusing the complainant that he had done damage to camera etc. which does not stand the test of reasonableness. Despite requests made by the complainant, the OPs  have not redressed the grievance of the complainant nor returned the subject handset. Ultimately the complainant sent legal notice Exhibit C-3 to the OPs but with no result. The aforesaid act amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. OPs were requested several times to admit the claim, but, with no result.  Hence, the present consumer complaint.
2. Defence of OP No.1 struck of vide order dated 6.1.2023 as OP No.1 failed to file the written version within the stipulated period despite affording ample opportunities. 
3. OP No.2  was properly served and when OP No.2 did not turn up before this Commission, despite proper service, they were proceeded against ex-parte on 11.3.2022.
4. OP No.3 resisted the consumer complaint and filed its written version, inter alia, taking preliminary objections of maintainability, cause of action, concealment of facts and also on the ground that the complainant has misrepresented the facts. It is alleged that in fact it is established position of law that consumer who willfully destroy, damage or negligently handle a product is not eligible any relief under the Act. However, it is admitted that the subject mobile was purchased from OP No.2 and he approached OP No.1  the authorized service centre of OP No.3 the manufacturer of the subject handset on 23.8.2021  and when the device was inspected, it was found to be having accidental damage and  it was determined  to be out of warranty for the damage.  However, the OP No.1 offered out of warranty paid repair to the complainant but the complainant denied for the same.  On merits, the facts as stated in the preliminary objections have been re-iterated. The cause of action set up by the complainant is denied.  The consumer complaint is sought to be contested.
5. Complainant chose not to file rejoinder.
6. In order to prove their case, contesting parties have tendered/proved their evidence by way of respective affidavits and supporting documents.

2. We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and also gone through the file carefully, including the written arguments on record.
   1. At the very outset, it may be observed that when it is an admitted case of the complainant and contesting Opposite party that the subject handset was purchased by the complainant from OP No.2 vide invoice Exhibit C-1  for an amount of Rs.81900/-  on 25.3.2021 and within 5 months,  the rear camera of the subject handset  started giving problem and accordingly on 23.8.2021 the complainant handed over the subject handset to OP No.1 i.e. the service centre of OP No.3 the Manufacturer  as is also evident from Annexure C-2  and till date the subject handset is in possession of OP No.1 without any repair or refund, the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if there is deficiency of service on the part of OPs and the complainant is entitled for the relief as prayed for as is the case of the complainant or if the complainant himself caused damage to the subject handset and the same is not covered under warranty and the complaint being false and frivolous is liable to be dismissed as is the defence of the contesting OP No.3.
   2. In the back drop of the foregoing admitted and disputed facts on record, it is clear that the entire case of the parties is revolving around the applicability of warranty on the repair of the subject handset. Annexure R-1  the warranty version clearly indicates  what is covered by warranty and what is not covered by warranty. The relevant portion of the same is reproduced as under:-

“ What is Covered by this Warranty?

Apple warrants the Apple-branded iPhone, iPad, iPod, Apple TV or HomePod hardware product and Apple- branded accessories contained in the original packaging ("Apple Product") against defects in materials and workmanship when used normally in accordance with Apple's published guidelines for a period of ONE (1) YEAR from the date of original retail purchase by the end-user purchaser ("Warranty Period"). Apple's published guidelines include but are not limited to information contained in technical specifications, user manuals and service communications.

Please note: All claims made under the Apple One-Year Limited Warranty will be governed by the terms set out in this warranty document.

WHAT IS NOT COVERED BY THIS WARRANTY?

This warranty does not apply to any non-Apple branded hardware products or any software, even if packaged or sold with Apple hardware. Manufacturers, suppliers, or publishers, other than Apple, may provide their own warranties to you - please contact them for further information. Software distributed by Apple with or without the Apple brand (including, but not limited to system software) is not covered by this warranty. Please refer to the licensing agreement accompanying the software for details of your rights with respect to its use. Apple does not warrant that the operation of the Apple Product will be uninterrupted or error-free. Apple is not responsible for damage arising from failure to follow instructions relating to the  Apple Products’s use. This Warranty does not apply: (a) to consumable parts, such as batteries or protective coatings that are designed to diminish over time, unless failure has occurred due to a defect in materials or workmanship; (b) to cosmetic damage, including but not limited to scratches; dents and broken plastic on ports unless failure has occurred due to a defect in materials or workmanship; (c) to damage caused by use with a third party component or product that does not meet the Apple Product's specifications (Apple Product specifications are available at

3.  A meticulous examination of warranty version  Annexure R-1 clearly indicates that the OP No.3 manufacturer shall is be not liable in case any damage is found to the subject handset being not covered  under the warranty.
4. It is the defence of the OP No.3 that in fact when the subject handset was inspected by the service  centre, it was found that the subject handset was damaged and the same being not covered under the warranty the complainant was offered by OP No.1 to get the same repaired on payment basis which was not accepted by the complainant.
5. However, there is no iota of evidence/material on record adduced by the OP No.3 in order to show that the  damage to the subject handset was caused by the complainant or the complainant was asked to take back the subject handset from OP No.1. Moreover, Exhibit C-2 Service Report specifically mentions that FMIP was not working  at the time of receipt of the subject handset from the complainant and further it has been made clear in the said report  that if any unauthorized modification, liquid, symptoms or any kind of damage found then device will be returned back. However, in the instant case neither the OP No.1 returned the subject handset to the complainant after inspection nor it has proved on record any document that damage  found in the subject handset was caused by the complainant and even there is nothing on record to show that the complainant was asked to pay repair charges making further clear that the aforesaid act of OPs amounts to deficiency in service and indulgence in unfair trade practice and in such a scenario the complainant is left with the only option to seek refund of the subject handset especially when the subject handset is still lying with OP No.1.

3. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds, the same is hereby partly allowed and OPs are directed as under :-

1. to refund ₹81900/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum (simple) from the date of institution of the present consumer complaint i.e. till onwards.
2. to pay a lump-sum amount of ₹10,000/- to the complainant towards compensation for causing mental agony and harassment and cost of litigation;

4. This order be complied with by the OPs jointly and severally within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy thereof, failing which the amount(s) mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above shall carry penal interest @ 12% per annum (simple) from the date of expiry of said period of 45 days, instead of 9% [mentioned at Sr.No.(i)], till realisation.
5. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed off.
6. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.