STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

First Appeal No.    45 of 2021

Date of Institution:  08.03.2021

Date of Decision:   19.03.2021 

Apple India Private Limited through its duly authorized representative Priyesh Poovanna, aged major, office at 19^th floor, Concorde Tower C, UB City, No.24, Vittal Mallya Road, Bangalore-560001.

Appellant-Opposite Party No.3

Versus

1.      Aadhar, aged 24 years son of Shri Parveen Ahluwalia, resident of House No.44, Ward No.4, Sita Nagar, Gharaunda, District Karnal (Aadhaar No.891269117592).

Respondent No.1-Complainant

2.      Mobile Planet Shop No.347/18, Sachin Plaza, Link Road, Char Chaman Karnal through its Proprietor.

3.      The Branch Manager, Apple Customer Services Centre, Iqor General Services India Pvt. Ltd., Sector 12, Part-I, Opposite I.T. Department, Shop No.3, 2^nd Floor, Super Mall, Karnal.

Respondent No.2 & 3-Opposite Parties No.1 & 2

CORAM:    Hon’ble Mr. Justice T.P.S. Mann, President.

                   Shri Harnam Singh Thakur, Judicial Member.                  

Present:     Shri Rahul Garg, counsel for the appellant.                                                              

O R D E R

 T.P.S. MANN, J.

The appellant who stood impleaded as opposite party No.3 in the complaint titled ‘Aadhar Versus Mobile Planet and others’ has filed the present appeal for challenging the order dated 19.01.2021 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Karnal, whereby complaint preferred by complainant Aadhar under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was allowed and the appellant being the manufacturer directed to replace the mobile set in question to the complainant with new one of the same value, make and model, as was purchased by the complainant. It was however made clear that if the mobile set of the same make and model was not available with the opposite parties then the opposite parties would return the cost of the mobile set in question i.e. Rs.82,000/- to the complainant. The opposite parties were further directed to pay Rs.15,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and for litigation expenses.

2.      According to the complainant, he had purchased one mobile phone make Apple iPhone X64 Silver for an amount of Rs.82,000/-. In the first week of February, 2019 a heavy blast took place in the said mobile phone, as a result of which, the phone was totally damaged. Immediately, he contacted opposite party No.1-Mobile Plannet and customer care centre of Apple Company telephonically and made a complaint in this regard, who assured him that very soon some technical person would visit his residence and check his phone. In this way, they postponed the matter for about two months and did not do anything. After two months, the officials of the Apple Customer Care Centre told him to contact opposite party No.2-the Branch Manager, Apple Customer Services Centre. The complainant, accordingly, contacted opposite party No.2 and made a complaint and also showed the damaged mobile phone to opposite party No.2. On seeing the totally damaged position of the said mobile phone, opposite party No.2 assured him that the company would replace the said totally damaged mobile phone with the same branded new mobile phone shortly. On this assurance of opposite party No.2, the complainant requested to keep the said damaged mobile phone and send the same to opposite party No.3 but officials of opposite party No.2 told him that there was no need to keep the said damaged mobile phone.  They further told him that they had taken the photographs of the damaged mobile phone and they would further sent the same to opposite party No.3 but no needful work was done in the matter. The complainant requested the opposite parties a number of times to give the new mobile in place of damaged mobile phone but opposite parties refused to do so. The complainant then sent a legal notice through his counsel but the opposite parties did not take any action. In this way, there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence, the complaint wherein the complainant sought directions to the opposite parties:

(i)      to replace the blasted mobile phone with the new one with the same marka.

(ii)      the opposite parties be burdened with an amount of Rs.50,000/- for mental pain, agony, harassment, as well as financial loss due to the negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties along with cost, interest and litigation expenses.

3.      Upon notice, opposite party No.1-dealer appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections. On merits, it was pleaded that the complaint was not maintainable against opposite party No.1 as only the manufacturer was responsible for any technical fault. After selling the iPhone in question, opposite party No.1 issued invoice No.289 dated 04.01.2019 for an amount of Rs.82,000/- and in the footnote of the said invoice, it was clearly mentioned that “warranty for the goods received was the responsibility of the manufacturer only”. The complainant never contacted opposite party No.1 as he had been approaching and requesting opposite parties No.2 and 3. There was no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.1. Accordingly, dismissal of the complaint was sought.

4.       Opposite party No.2 did not appear and was  proceeded  against      ex parte.

5.       Opposite party No.3-manufacturer filed its written version stating therein that the complainant himself had grossly misused and damaged the iPhone and then falsely claimed that his iPhone suffered a ‘heavy blast’. After the alleged ‘heavy blast’, the complainant never submitted his iPhone to opposite party No.3 authorized service provider for inspection and/or repair. The complainant had falsely claimed that he offered his iPhone to opposite party No.3-authorized service provider i.e. Iqor General Services India Pvt. Ltd. and opposite party No.2 for repair of his iPhone, who told the complainant that there was no need to submit the iPhone for inspection and/or repair but assured the complainant that his iPhone would be replaced. However, on being asked by opposite party No.2 as per its standard protocol, the complainant refused to handover the iPhone. The complainant had purchased the iPhone from opposite party No.1 on 04.01.2019, who was not an authorized seller/dealer of opposite party No.3 and opposite party No.3 had no concern or relation whatsoever with opposite party No.1. The external damage caused to the iPhone due to negligence/intentional misuse/abuse of the complainant rendered the hardware warranty inapplicable to the iPhone.  The complainant had concealed the material facts and did not approach the District Forum with clean hands. The complainant’s grievances and queries were adequately addressed to and resolved by opposite party No.3 i.e. customer care, which communicated clearly to the complainant that damage in the iPhone was “externally induced” and the device was “beyond economic repair”. However, the complainant refused to accept the SSE analysis and instead, unreasonably and without merit demanded for replacement of iPhone and compensation to be provided to him. The complainant had not disclosed this fact to the District Consumer Forum. The complainant had reported the alleged incident to opposite party No.3’s customer care on 29.01.2019, where he had claimed that while using the iPhone smoke started coming out of the device and it caught fire which stayed for 10 to 15 seconds. Further, opposite party No.3’s customer care team actively took up the case and upon receipt of the alleged complaint, promptly escalated the matter for further investigation. Based on photographs of the device that were submitted by the complainant, the SSE team observed that the device had been subjected to “extraordinary mechanical damage” which was “externally induced” and given the extent of damage, the unit was “beyond economic repair”. The same was communicated to the complainant by opposite party No.3’s customer care team via telephone on 26.02.2019 and 13.03.2019. There was no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.3 and accordingly prayer made for dismissal of the complaint.

6.      In support of his case, the complainant tendered his affidavit (Exhibit CW1/A), copy of aadhar card (Exhibit C-1), copy of legal notice (Exhibit C2), receipts (Exhibit C3 to Exhibit C5), copy of invoice (Exhibit C6), email (Exhibit C7) and photographs of the damaged phone (Exhibit C8 to Exhibit C12). On the other hand, opposite party No.1 tendered in evidence affidavit (Exhibit RW1/A) of Udit Bajaj and copy of invoice (Exhibit R1) whereas opposite party no.3 tendered in evidence affidavit (Exhibit OP1/A) of Priyesh Poovnna, minutes of Board meeting of Apple India (Exhibit OP2), terms of warranty (Exhibit OP3) and letters through email (Exhibit OP4 and Exhibit OP5).

7.      After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the case file, the District Consumer Forum had held that the mobile in question was having manufacturing defect during warranty period. Accordingly, the complaint was allowed and the appellant directed to replace the mobile set in question with new one of the same value, make and model as was purchased by the complainant. It was also ordered that in case the mobile set of the same make and model was not available then the opposite parties would return the cost of the mobile set i.e. Rs.82,000/- to the complainant besides Rs.15,000/- on account of mental agony and harassment and for litigation expenses.

8.      Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the external damage caused to the mobile was due to negligence/intentional misuse/abuse of the complainant, which rendered the hardware warranty inapplicable.  The grievances of the complainant were adequately addressed to and resolved by the appellant and the complainant was accordingly informed that the damage to the mobile was externally induced making the device beyond economic repair. However, the complainant had refused to accept the SSE analysis and instead unreasonably and without merit demanded replacement of the mobile. The complainant had apprised the appellant that while using the mobile, smoke started coming out and it caught fire which stayed for 10 to 15 seconds. The photographs of the mobile, which were submitted by the complainant, were analyzed by the SSE team and accordingly it was observed that the device had been subjected to extraordinary mechanical damage, which was externally induced and given the extent of damage, the unit had been rendered beyond economic repair. The same was communicated to the complainant. As such, the appeal be accepted and the impugned order be set aside.

9.      Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and on going through the impugned order, this Commission finds that on examining the photographs available on the appeal record as Annexure A3, it is made out that the mobile had been totally burnt and become useless. As the mobile had been totally burnt and become useless, there was no reason for the complainant to keep the mobile with him and not producing the mobile by the complainant before the opposite parties becomes irrelevant. Even otherwise, it has come in the evidence that the complainant was told by the appellant’s customer care to keep damaged mobile with him instead of producing/handing over the same to the opposite parties. Accordingly, the mobile in question was found to have manufacturing defect and, that too, during the warranty period. Therefore, the complainant was entitled to get the damaged mobile replaced with a new one.

10.    In view of the above, no case is made out for any interference in the impugned order passed by the District Consumer Forum. The appeal is devoid of any merit and, accordingly, dismissed.

11.    The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited by the appellant while filing the appeal shall be disbursed in favour of respondent No.1-complainant against proper receipt and identification subject to appeal/revision, if any, but in accordance with law.