Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/696/2018

Karatika Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Apple Care Centre - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

03 Jun 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint  No	:	696 of 2018
Date  of  Institution	:	10.12.2018
Date   of   Decision	:	03.06.2019

 

 

 

 

Karatika Singh daughter of Sukhendra Singh, R/o H.No.22/20, 8 Marla Colony, Panipat, at present H.No.914, 2^nd Floor, Sector 70, Mohali, Punjab.

          

             ……..Complainant

 

Versus

 

1]  Apple Care Centre, SCO No.274, 1^st Floor, Sector 32-D, Chandigarh through its Manager.

 

2]  Apple Mobile Company, Registered Office: No.24, 19^th Floor, Concord Tower-C, Vittal Mallya Road, Bangalore 560001 through its CMD/Manager.

 

3]  Chadha Mobile House Pvt. Ltd., Near Bhagat Singh Chowk, Jalandhar, through its Director/Manager.

………. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN        PRESIDENT

SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA    MEMBER

         SH.RAVINDER SINGH     MEMBER

 

 

Argued By:       Complainant in person.

Sh.Aftab Singh Khara, Adv. proxy for Sh.Pushpinder Kaushal, Adv. for Opposite Party No.1.

Sh.Devinder Kumar, Adv. for Opposite Party NO.2.

Opposite Party NO.3. exparte.

 

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

                                The case of the complainant in brief is that she purchased a mobile I-phone 7 of Apple Company, 128GB IMEI No.355301081423108 from Mobile House near Bhagat Singh Chowk, Jallandhar on 19.09.2017 vide invoice no.T-12611 for a sum of Rs.49,600/-. It is averred that just after 2-3 days of its purchase, there was battery charging problem occurred in the mobile set, so she approached Opposite Party NO.1 i.e. service centre of the company at Chandigarh. It is also averred that Opposite Party No.1/Service Centre kept the mobile handset for one month on account of repairs and then returned it with assurance of its properly functional, but despite of that the same problem again occurred in the mobile handset. The complainant again visited Opposite Party No.1/service centre for repair of the mobile handset, where the handset was fell down from the official of Company and its glass was broken.  However, they kept the mobile handset for 20/25 days and returned carrying repairs, but still there was defect in the mobile handset.  It is submitted that the complainant also visited the Service Centre of OP Company at Karnal, who told that there will be expenditure of Rs.16,000/- on repair of the mobile, even though it is within warranty.  The complainant requested the Service Centre of OPs to repair the handset under warranty but they refused.  Hence, this complaint has been filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs.

 

2]       The Opposite Party No.1 has filed reply stating that the mobile handset in question was submitted in the Service Centre of answering Opposite Party only once on 25.11.2017 for receiver issue, for which the display was replaced by Apple RC free of cost and it was delivered to the complainant on 30.11.2017 as per the Service Delivery Challan, which was duly signed by the complainant (Ann.R-1 & R-2) and thereafter, the complainant never approached the Opposite Party No.1. It is denied that there are multiple manufacturing defects in the mobile handset in question. Denying all other allegations of the complainant, the Opposite Party No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

         The Opposite Party NO.2 has also filed reply and while admitting the factual matrix of the case, stated that the complainant approached Opposite Party No.1, an authorised service centre of OP No.2, with some alleged issue regarding battery fluctuations in the mobile handset on 27.11.2017, which was repaired and device was returned back to complainant in working condition.  It is stated that the complainant again visited Opposite Party No.1 with some issue, but the device was found physically damaged and hence the device was rendered out of warranty, which was informed to the complainant. It is also stated that the complainant was offered out of warranty paid service to which she refused. Thereafter, the complainant never visited Opposite Party NO.1. It is denied that there is any manufacturing defect in the mobile handset in question.  It is submitted that it is the result of complainant’s negligence in handling of the device and not due to any defect or deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties.  Denying all other allegations and pleading no deficiency in service, the Opposite Party No.2 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

         Opposite Party No.3 did not turn up despite service of notice, hence it was proceeded exparte vide order dated 16.1.2019.  

 

4]      Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

5]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have also perused the entire record.

 

6]       Admittedly, complainant purchased a mobile I-phone 7 of Apple Company, 128GB IMEI No.355301081423108 on 19.09.2017 for an amount of Rs.49,600/-.  It is also admitted that the said mobile handset was got repaired on 25.11.2017 for receiver issue, for which the display was replaced by OP No.1 free of cost and it was delivered to the complainant on 30.11.2017 as per the Service Delivery Challan (Ann.R-1 & R-2).

 

7]       The main grouse of the complainant is that thereafter again the mobile handset became defective and when she approached Opposite Party NO.1 for getting it repaired under warranty, they refused to do so saying that the repair does not fall under warranty and asked her to pay Rs.16,000/- towards repair cost.

 

8]       To this, the stand of the OPs is that on second occasion, the device was found physically damaged and hence, the repair was denied under warranty and complainant has been asked to get it repaired on payment basis, which she refused.  The Opposite Party No.1 in support placed on record Service Delivery Challan dated 14.5.2019 wherein the Service Engineer of Opposite Party No.1 after thorough inspection of the handset in question, refused to repair the handset, with following observations:-

“customer reported issue:- battery back up, hanging & muti touch issue, dents on all sides…

Service Centre observation: Display multi touch auto working and battery health test consumed. Device further checked for VMI – visual mechanical inspection.  VMI fail. Non genuine display module found and internal display cowling and internal battery cowling found missing.  Device returned as it is to customer.”   

 

9]       During the course of arguments, the complainant submitted that she got the mobile in question repaired from open market at her own expenses, spending nearly Rs.16,000/-. However, the complainant has not placed on record the repair bill to prove the payment of repair cost, if any, as well as the nature of repair carried out on the mobile handset in question.  In the absence of such a vital documentary evidence, it cannot be presumed that the complainant spent such a huge amount for the repair of the handset in question. Hence the case of the complainant falls flat. The complainant has miserably failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties by leading sufficient documentary evidence.  

 

10]      Keeping in view the above discussion, the complaint being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.

 

         The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

3^rd June, 2019                        

                                                                                       Sd/-   (RANJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

         

 

Sd/-

                                                                    (PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER