Delhi

East Delhi

CC/966/2014

PANKAJ - Complainant(s)

Versus

UNITED INDIA INS - Opp.Party(s)

17 Nov 2014

ORDER

                         CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, EAST, Govt of NCT Delhi

                  CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, 1^st FLOOR, SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI 110092                                  

                                                                                                  Consumer Complaint no.        996 / 2014

                                                                                                  Date of Institution                  13/11/2014

                                                                                                  Order Reserved on                 03/01/2019

                                                                                                  Date of Order                          05/01/2019  In matter of

Mr. Deepak Chitkar, adult       

Office- F-102, Main Road,

Jagatpuri, Delhi 110051……………………..………………………………….Complainant

                                                                   

                                                                     Vs

1-The Manager,

The New Galaxy India (seller)

12/124, Geeta Colony, Delhi-110031

 

2- M/s Radius System Pvt Ltd., (service centre)    

F-28, Star City Mall,  

Mayur Vihar, Delhi -110092

 

3-The Managing Director,

Apple India Ltd., (manufacturer)

19^th Floor, Concord Tower C,

UB City No. 24, Vittal Malya Road, Banglore - 560001…..……….Opponents

 

Complainant’s Advocate ………………Mr Rajesh Kumar Sharma

Opponent’s Advocate ……………….…Nemo

 

Quorum          Sh Sukhdev Singh      President

                         Dr P N Tiwari              Member

                         Mrs Harpreet Kaur    Member

 

Order by Dr P N Tiwari,  Member 

Brief Facts of the case  -          

Complainant purchased Apple 5S Space 64 GB handset from OP1/ The New Galaxy India on 08/12/2013 vide IMEI 358030055829886 for a sum of Rs 71,500/- invoice no. 20652 (Ex CW1/1) The said handset started creating problem of hanging and on-off button was not properly functioning from 29/09/2014, so was shown to OP2/ Radius System Pvt Ltd., (Ex CW1/2) after inspecting the said handset, returned without repair after four days and told that the handset failed Apple testing measure though mobile was under warranty. Seeing callous attitude of OP2, number of emails were sent to OP3, but did not receive any reply. Hence, filed complaint and claimed refund of cost of hand set of Rs 71,500/ with Rs 20,000/- for mental harassment and Rs 8000/- as litigation cost.

OP1/seller did not appear nor submitted reply or evidence despite of serving notices, so proceeded Ex-Parte. OP2/service centre submitted reply with evidence through Mr Nitin Kumar Rajput as job sheet and certain photographs of mobile. It was submitted that repair could not be done due to multiple scratches and dents over the body of handset. The said complaint of none functioning of “On and Off button” and hanging problems. There was physical damage to the body of the handset so mobile did not come under warranty conditions as per OP3/ Apple guidelines (Ex OP2W/1). Despite of void warranty, images of the said mobile were sent for expert team at OP3 headquarters (Ex OP2W/1A,B &C) who also asserted that OP2 had done their services as per OP3 guidelines and complainant could avail services on payment basis. Thus there was no deficiency in the services of OP2.  

OP3 submitted written statement and denied that there was any manufacturing defect in the mobile, as there were physical damages over the body of mobile as scratches and dents which resulted out of warranty status as per Hardware Warranty conditions. OP3 submitted that due to failure in “Visual Inspection Test” violation of warranty occurred as per warranty conditions. OP3 also submitted “Hardware Warranty” guidelines which were applicable for one year (Ex OP3W/1) were got void. Still complainant was asked to get the mobile repaired after paying the charges, but did not do so. Hence, OP3 may be excluded from any liability in deficiency in their service.   

Complainant filed his rejoinder to WS of OP3 and denied all the replies. It was stated that the said mobile was under warranty and OP2 did not provide any service rather returned without repairing mobile after four days. Complainant also submitted evidences through his own affidavit where he relied on purchase bill (Ex CW1/1), service report (Ex CW1/2) and various emails sent to OP3 (Ex CW1/ 3A, B and C). Hence, OP2 committed deficiency in services on behalf of OP3. So, claim for refund of his mobile cost be awarded.

OP2 did not submit any separate evidence where OP3 submitted their evidences on affidavit through Mr Priyesh Povanna, Country Legal Counsel working with OP3. OP3 relied on their warranty conditions and stated that due to physical damages, warranty was void so was the reason for not repairing mobile under warranty tenure. OP3 replied in their email (Ex OP3W/3) that services could be possible on payment basis for which complainant did not agree. Hence there was no deficiency of OP2 or there was no manufacturing defect for which mobile could be replaced.

OP3 also submitted written arguments where OP3 relied on references under citations as  ‘Honda Cars India Ltd. vs Abdul K Rubb and Tata Motors vs Surjeet Kaur, both from  National Commission where manufacturing defect has to be proved by complainant under warranty tenure.   

Arguments were heard from both the party counsels and after perusal of records on file, order was reserved.  

We have gone through all the facts and evidences on record. It was observed that complainant has stated in his email that mobile had scratches and dents which developed hanging problem still wanted replacement which was not possible under void warranty conditions. We have gone through Hardware Warranty Conditions (Ex OP3W/2) in condition IV under “What is not covered” by this warranty head para 2 (b) as to cosmetic damages, including but not limited to scratches, dents and broken plastic on parts. So, warranty was void under this condition though mobile was under warranty tenure. It was also seen that complainant was free to get the defect or problem removed on payment basis which he did not do so. Also during the pendency of case, complainant did not submit any evidence whether he opted to get his costly mobile repaired as mobile was with him.

So, we come to the conclusion that if complainant wish to get his said mobile repaired on payment basis can do so with authorised service center of OP3. OP2 shall facilitate the service as per warranty conditions. There is no liability on OP1 as being seller and on OP3 as manufacturer. There shall be no order to cost.

 

The copy of this order be sent to the parties as per the Section 18 of the Consumer Protection Regulation, 2005 ( in short CPR)  and file be consigned to the Record Room under Section 20(1) of CPR.

 

(Dr) P N Tiwari –Member                                                                      Mrs Harpreet Kaur – Member

                                                        Sukhdev Singh  President