Haryana

Ambala

CC/26/2019

Gurjeet Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Vats Mobile world - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

03 Jan 2020

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

 

                                                          Complaint case No.:  26 of 2019.

                                                          Date of Institution           :  25.01.2019.

                                                          Date of decision    :  03.01.2020.

 

Gurjeet Singh son of Gaje Singh, serving at Steel Factory, behind King Fisher Dhulkot, Ambala City (permanent resident of Village-Kalsi, Arjheri, District Karnal (Haryana).

……. Complainant.

                                                    Versus

 

1. Vats Mobile World, Salarpur Road, Near Geeta School-Kurukshetra-136118 (Through its Dealer of Apple I Phone Mobile).
2. IQOR Global Service India Pvt. Ltd. shop No.12, First Floor, Galaxy Mall, Sector-7, Ambala City District Ambala-134003 (Through its Service Manager).
3. Apple India Private Limited No.24, 19^th Floor, Concorde Tower C, UB City, Vittal Mallya Road, Bangalore-560001 (Through its G.M.)

 

     ….…. Opposite Parties.

 

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                   Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member.

Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.         

                            

Present:       Complainant in person.

                   OPs No.1 & 2 proceeded against ex parte vide order dated                           12.03.2019.

Shri Rajiv Sachdeva, Advocate, counsel for the OP No.3.                

 

ORDER:     SH. VINOD KUMAR SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) praying for issuance of following directions to them:-

1. To replace the mobile set in question or to refund its cost amounting Rs.56,000/- alongwith interest @18% per annum from the date of its purchase till its payment.
2. To pay Rs.30,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by him.
3. To pay the litigation expenses.  
   382.  

                   Any other relief which this Hon’ble Forum may deem fit.

 

Brief facts of the case are that the complainant is serving in Steel Factory at Dhulkot behind King Fisher Resorts Army and permanent resident of Village-Kalsi, District Karnal. The OP No.1 is dealer, OP No.2 is service centre shop, OP No.3 is manufacturer of mobile in question. He purchased Apple I Phone 8 Gold 64 GB Mobile-IEMI-356707086746948 (SR No- C8 PUMNIMJC6F) from the OP No.1 for Rs.56,000/- vide bill No.469 dated 16.03.2018. At the time of purchase of the said mobile, the OP No.1 assured  him that during the warranty period Apple Mobile authorized service centre will solve the problem for repair/replace the above mobile set. On 31.03.2018, after 16 days, the said mobile set started giving problem like phone & device gets turn off automatically, while using and networking not functioning. On 01.04.2018, he approached to OP No.1, who advised to show this problem to the authorized service centre i.e OP No.2. Accordingly, on 19.05.2018 he went to OP No.2 and its representative checked the problem and advised him to deposit the mobile and get it tomorrow after repair and issued a job sheet bearing No.50215872 dated 22.05.2018.  On the next date i.e 23.05.2018, when he went to OP No.2, then its representative advised that there is major defect in the mobile, so it could not be repaired in this service centre and the mobile will be sent to the main service centre i.e. OP No.3. Thereafter, he went to OP No.2 on 07.01.2019 but its defect could not be repaired till then the OP No.2 issued second job sheet bearing No.50311892 dated 07.01.2019 with the remarks “Other General Problem Stuck on Apple Logo”. The said mobile phone was deposited with the OP No.2. The said mobile set giving problem to him since the date of its purchase. The mobile set was within the warranty and the OPs failed to rectify its defect. This way, the OPs have committed deficiency in service. Hence, the present complaint.

2.                Upon notice OP No.1 and 2 failed to put in appearance and were proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 12.03.2019.

                   Upon notice, the OP No.3 appeared through counsel and filed written version and have raised preliminary objections regarding maintainability etc. On merits, it is stated that the complainant purchased iphone 8 Gold 64 GB bearing Serial No.C8PVMN1MJC6F and IMEI No.356707086746948 from OP No.1 who is not an authorized dealer/reseller of the OP No.3 on 16.03.2018 for the cost of Rs.56,000/-. OP No.1 assured to complainant that during the warranty period Apple mobile authorized service centre will resolve the problem of the device. The device was tampered and this resulted into un-authorized modifications. The complainant was clearly informed that his device was found tampered by OP No.3 and so it cannot be covered under warranty. OP No.2 found that the device was Beyond Economic Repair (BER). The OP No.2 offered an out of warranty paid service to which complainant denied. Thereafter the complainant never approached the OP No.2 anytime. The un-authorized modification is strictly not covered under the warranty prescribed by the OP No.3. Complainant approached the OP No.3 before approaching the OP No.2 which resulted into unauthorized modification. Complainant has not produced any sort of evidence in support of his claims. The OP No.3 has been prompt in providing service through its authorized service provider when the complainant visited them and so there is no question of causing deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.3. Despite of complainant’s own negligence, he is trying to claim refund/replacement. Complainant had miserably failed to prove that there was deficiency of service or unfair trade practice. It is clearly mentioned that the device was tampered and this resulted into unauthorized modification and so the complainant is eligible for an out of warranty paid service. As such there is no deficiency on its part and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint filed against it. 

3.                The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Annexure CA along with documents Annexure C1 to C3 and closed the evidence. On the other hand the ld. counsel for the OP No.3 tendered affidavit of Priyesh Poovanna son of U K Nanaiah, Country Legal Counsel, Apple India Ltd., 19^th Floor, Concorde Tower C, UB City No.24, Vittal Mallya Road, Bengaluru-560001 as Annexure OP3/A along with documents as Annexure OP3/1 & OP3/2 and closed the evidence on behalf of the OP No.3.

4.                We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and carefully gone through the case file.

5.                 The learned counsel for the complainant reiterated the version as mentioned in the complaint and prayed for allowing the present complaint.

6.                Similarly, the learned counsel for the OP No.3 reiterated the version as mentioned in its reply and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

7.                The learned counsel for the OP No.3 argued that the mobile in question of the complainant was tampered and as per condition 4 (f) “to damage caused by service (including upgrades and expansions) performed by anyone who is not a representative of Apple or an Apple Authorized Service Provider (“AASP”) the company will not be liable to the said loss. The counsel for the OP No.3 argued that the complainant did not repair his phone from any authorize centre of the OP No.3. From the above mentioned facts and circumstances, it is clearly established that the mobile in question was got repaired by the complainant from the open market which caused tampering in violation of the terms and conditions of the warranty.

8.                Complainant has argued that the mobile in question was got repaired by him after filing of the complaint before this Forum from the open market. A query was put to the complainant by this Forum, as to why he got repaired his phone after filing of the complaint from the open market, but he did not replied to the same. No expert opinion was brought on record by the complainant in the present case to prove that the mobile in question was having a manufacturing defect. In this view of the matter, we do not hesitate to hold that the complainant has failed to prove his case and as such the complaint filed by him against OPs is devoid of merits. Consequently, we dismiss the present complaint without any order as to costs. Certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

Announced on :03.01.2020.

 

 

          (Vinod Kumar Sharma)            (Ruby Sharma)     (Neena Sandhu)

              Member                                   Member             President