Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/309/2018

Gagandeep Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Apple Inc. - Opp.Party(s)

Arif Qureshi Adv.

19 Sep 2019

ORDER

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

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	309 of 2018
Date  of  Institution	:	04.06.2018
Date   of   Decision	:	19.09.2019

 

 

 

 

Gagandeep Singh s/o Sat Pal Singh, R/o Kothi No.82, Sector 71, Mohali. 

             ……..Complainant

 

Versus

 

1]  Apple Inc. having its registered office at 1 Infinite Loop Cupertino, Chandigarh Administration 95014, USA and its Corporate office at Apple India Private Limited, 19^th Floor, Concorde Tower “C” UB City, No.24, Vittal Mallya Road, Bengaluru 560 001 Karnataka.

 

2]  Cute Corner, SCO 71-73, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh.

 

3]  eStoe Apple Service Centre, Office at SCO 371, Level 1, above HDFC Bank, Near Hotel GK International, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh through its owner/proprietor Mr.Rajesh Jaiswal.

 

4]  Rajesh Jaiswal Owner/Proprietor of eStore Apple Service Centre, Office at SCO 371, Level 1, above HDFC Bank, Near Hotel GK International, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh.

………. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN        PRESIDENT

SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA    MEMBER

         SH.RAVINDER SINGH     MEMBER

 

 

For complainant      : Sh.Arif Qureshi, Adv. for complainant.

For Opposite Parties  : Sh.Devinder Kumar, Adv. for OP No.1.

  Sh.Pankar Bhandrai, Adv. for OP No.2.

  OPs No.3 & 4 exparte.

 

 

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

                                The case of the complainant in brief is that he purchased Apple iPhone 6 on 3.6.2016 from Cute corner, Sector 17, Chandigarh for an amount of Rs.40,000/- (Ann.C-1). It is averred that the complainant has been using the said iPhone for the last 2 years and has no issue with its working. It is stated that the problem in the said mobile phone started only after installing new update version 11.2.5 launched by Apple Inc. and it started giving problem like quick draining of battery, heating of phone while not in use, occasional hanging, lag issues and other operating system problems. The complainant took the mobile phone to Apple Service Centre and the employee there told the complainant to get its battery replaced for an amount of Rs.3000/-, but complainant did not agree to that. It is stated that the Apple Service Centre failed to resolve the problem in the mobile phone in question.  The matter was also reported to all Opposite Parties, but to no avail.  Hence, this complaint has been filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties.

 

2]       The Opposite Party No.1 has filed reply and while admitting the sale of the mobile phone in question, stated that when the complainant approached Opposite Party No.3, an authorised service centre of OPs, with problem in the mobile phone in question, Opposite Party No.3 diagnosed the device and found the battery issues in it.  It is submitted that since the device was rendered out of one year limited warranty, they offered an out of warranty paid service for replacing the battery to which the complainant denied.  It is also submitted that the warranty provisions, terms & conditions of the Apple Warranty specifically are for a period of One Year from the date of purchase.  In this case, the purchase date of mobile was 3.6.2016 for which the date of warranty expired on 2.6.2017 and during this long period the device had no issues and it worked smoothly (Ann.R-1).  It is also submitted that the complainant is eligible for an Out of Warranty Paid service, which he denied.  Denying other allegations and pleading no deficiency in service, the Opposite Party No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

         Opposite Party No.2 has also filed reply stating that Opposite Party No.2 is just the retailer to sell the product in new condition, which it received from the manufacturer and it is not responsible for any kind of warranty or guarantee of the product, which lies only with the manufacturer.  It is stated that Opposite Party No.1, who is manufacturer is responsible for any kind of warranty or guarantee of the mobile handset purchased by the complainant.  Denying other allegations for want of knowledge and pleading no deficiency in service, the Opposite Party NO.2 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

         Opposite Parties No.3 & 4 did not turn up despite service of notice, hence they were proceeded exparte vide order dated 5.10.2018.

 

3]      The complainant filed replication thereby reiterating the assertions as made in the complaint and controverting that of the Opposite parties made in the reply.

 

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]       The copy of invoice of the mobile in question (Ann.C-1) fortifies that complainant purchased it on 3.6.2016 spending an amount of Rs.40,000/-.  The thorough perusal of the record reveals that the said mobile functioned upto the mark till a new update version launched by the Apple Company i.e. Opposite Party No.1 was upgraded in the said mobile by the complainant.

 

7]       It is the stand of the complainant that after uploading the new update version 11.2.5, the said mobile started giving trouble concerning quick draining of battery, heating of the phone while not in use, occasional hanging, lag issues and other operating system problems and when it was showed to the authorised service centre of OP Company i.e. Opposite Parties No.3, it suggested that replacement of the Battery is the option to make it properly functionable.  The dispute between the parties erupted when the Service Centre of Apple Company i.e. Opposite Party No.3, asked the complainant to pay Rs.3000/- for the battery to be replaced. 

 

8]       The complainant agitated the matter by stating that while searching on website/internet for the warranty policy of Apple Company/OP No.1, he come across certain links available on the website of Opposite Party No.1 and the relevant print-outs of the same are appended as Ann.C-5 & C-6  alongwith with the rejoinder.  While arguing the matter in question, the complainant referred those documents and submitted that as per the warranty policy as available on the website of Opposite Party No.1, they are giving away a credit of 3900 INR to the Apple iPhone 6 user regarding battery issue and claimed that OPs have willfully concealed the said information from the complainant. 

 

9]       After going through the referred documents i.e. Ann.C-5 & C-6 in detail, it is made out that the claim of the complainant for the claim of credit of 3900 INR on account of battery issue is not sustainable as the claim benefit of the same is available to the customers of Apple Mobile, who have purchased the said product during the period January 1^st, 2017 and December 28, 2017 and very evidently (Ann.C-1) it is proved on record that the complainant purchased the mobile in question in the year 2016 and he thoroughly enjoyed the warranty cover and no problem was encountered with the mobile handset in question till the warranty period of complainant’s mobile i.e. uptill 2.6.2017. It is observed that only on the updating of the new update version on the mobile phone in question, as launched by Opposite Party No.1, the mobile handset started giving trouble and the authorised service centre suggested for the battery replacement to which the complainant refused as was not ready to spent Rs.3000/- for the same as demanded.

 

10]      In the given scenario, no deficiency in service is made out against the OPs as they are rightly claiming the amount for the replacement of the battery of the mobile in question being out of warranty. 

 

11]      In our opinion, if the complainant wants to enjoy better features in his mobile handset then certainly he is required to spend certain extra bucks for the same and it is wrong on his part to claim the benefit of the scheme for which he is not entitled. 

 

12]      It is left with the discretionary powers of the Opposite Parties to grant any benefit or relief to the complainant as a goodwill gesture, otherwise, no case of any deficiency in service is made out against the Opposite Parties.

 

13]      In view of the above discussion & findings, the present complaint being without 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

19^th September, 2019                      

                                                                   Sd/-                      (RANJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

         

 

Sd/-

                                                                    (PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER