IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ERNAKULAM

Date of filing : 04.01.2018

Date of order : 04.03.2021

PRESENT:

Shri.V.S.Manulal President-in-charge

Shri. V.Ramachandran Member

Smt. Sreevidhia T.N Member.

CC.No.19/2018

Between

O R D E R

V.Ramachandran, Member

1) A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:

The complainant states that he had purchased an Apple I Phone 16 Go Silver (MF 353 HN/A) from the 1^st opposite party on 01.06.2016 on payment of costs of Rs.22,000/- which was manufactured by the 3^rd opposite party. The warranty period for the said phone was one year. The complainant noticed that the mobile phone started display damage within the warranty period and therefore he approached the 2^nd opposite party who is the service provider of the 3^rd opposite party. The service personnel of the 2^nd opposite party inspected the phone and

asked the complainant to pay an amount of Rs.11,955/- towards repair charges. The complainant paid the said amount to the 2^nd opposite party on 25.05.2017 without any hesitation. The 2^nd opposite party assured the complainant that they shall repair the phone and return to the complainant as early as possible. Therefore the complainant entrusted the mobile phone to the 2^nd opposite party. After 10 days the complainant approached the 2^nd opposite party for availing the rectified handset, but they informed the complainant that they could not rectify the defects of the phone. The 2^nd opposite party also informed the complainant that they are ready to replace the phone if the complainant pays an amount of Rs.24,000/-. The complainant states that the market value of the phone is only Rs.17,000/- and this is the tactics of the 2^nd opposite party. Eventhouth the defect was occurred within the warranty period, the 2^nd opposite party collected a sum of Rs.11,955/- from the complainant to rectify the defect of the phone. But they failed to rectify the defects. Later on, the 2^nd opposite party deducted Rs.3,000/- from the amount paid by the complainant as the service charges of Rs.11,955/- and refunded the balance amount to the complainant. Since the opposite party had not repaired the phone, the complainant alleges that the defects occurred in the mobile handset is due to some manufacturing defects. The complainant also alleges that the defects had not been rectified by the opposite parties eventhough the defects had occurred within the warranty period. Therefore the complainant approached this Commission seeking for getting reliefs from the opposite parties.

2) Upon notices from this Commission the opposite parties 1 to 3 appeared before the Commission and filed their version.

3) For the sake of convenience the important points presented by the opposite parties 1 to 3 in their version are summarized as below:

The 1^st opposite party admitted that the complainant had purchased an Apple I Phone 16 Go Silver (MF 353 HN/A) on 01.06.2016 for Rs.22,000/- from the 1^st opposite party which is manufactured by the 3^rd opposite party. Admittedly the complainant never approached the 1^st opposite party after the date of purchasing the phone. The 1^st opposite party is no way connected with the 2^nd opposite party

and the 2^nd opposite party is a separate legal entity from the other opposite parties hence the 1^st opposite party cannot be held liable for any deficiency of service as alleged by the complainant. The complainant had no allegation against the 1^st opposite party that the product was having any defects at the time of sale, the 1^st opposite party had sold only a brand new mobile handset to the complainant and the same was purchased by the complainant with utmost satisfaction and therefore pleaded to exonerate the 1^st opposite party from charges.

The second opposite party in their version stated that the complainant had entrusted the phone to the 2^nd opposite party for repair and on preliminary inspection it was found that the defect was occurred in the mobile handset due to the pressure damage and hence the same was taken for servicing. An amount of Rs.1,000/- was also billed to the customer as Diagnostic Charges. On inspection, it was found that the display unit has been damaged and the same needs to be replaced. Any device of ‘Apple’ comes with a pressure damage has to be sent to the Repair Centre of Apple. Accordingly, on 25.05.2017 the complainant was informed about the details and cost of changing the display unit, which was Rs.11,955/-and the complainant was ready to pay the amount. Since the defect of the display unit could not be rectified, the phone was in need of change and the complainant was informed by the opposite party that their willing to replace the phone as a whole on payment basis. Out of Rs.11,956/- paid by the customer, Rs.2,113/- was charged to the complainant as RTC charge which is charged by the repair centre of the 3^rd opposite party. The balance amount of Rs.9,843/- was refunded to the complainant on 20.07.2017. The complainant forgets the fact that warranty is subject to certain terms and conditions. The complainant had abused the phone by subjecting it to extreme physical pressure, which has resulted in the damage of the phone. To rectify the defect, that part of the phone was to be replaced and the replacement of such part will not come under the warranty and therefore the opposite party had asked the complainant to pay the amount for the same. Further and above, the defect occurred in the phone is due to the rough handling of the phone by the complainant. The opposite party also stated that the complainant had filed the complaint as on experimental basis.

In the version, the 3^rd opposite party submitted that the warranty does not apply in this case if the damage caused in the mobile handset by accident, abuse, misuse, fire, liquid contact, earthquake or other external cause. The 3^rd opposite party stated that their product is of superior quality. The 2^nd opposite party diagnosed the said device and found that the device had black spots on its display which resulted into accidental damage. The 2^nd opposite party stated that the complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the warranty issued by the 3^rd opposite party, the accidental damage are not covered under the warranty. The opposite party stated that they are not liable to pay any reliefs to the complainant and hence prayed to dismis the complaint.

Evidence

Evidences in this case consisted of proof affidavit filed by the complainant and the complainant was examined as PW1. Exbt. A1 to A5 documents were marked on the side of the complainant. The 2^nd opposite party produced documentary evidences which were marked as Exbt.B1 to B3.

5) The main points to be examined in this case is as follows:

(i) Whether the complainant had subjected to any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite party?

(ii) If so, whether the complainant is entitled to get any compensation from the opposite party?

(iii) Costs of the proceedings?

6) Point No. (i)

Exbt.A1 is the purchase invoice issued by the opposite party from which it can be seen that the complainant had purchased an Apple I Phone 16 Go Silver (MF 353 HN/A) on 01.06.2016 from the opposite party on payment of cost of Rs.22,000/-. The opposite party had issued the tax invoice dated 23.05.2017 against which a payment of Rs.1,000/- has been made by the complainant which is evident from Exbt.A2. Exbt.A3 is the service report dated 13.06.2017 from which it can be seen that “pressure damage, usage marks and scratches, dent on the bottom left corner” are the condition of equipment. The diagnostic details described in the service report as “If repair centre comes back with any other issue for which device needs a replacement then re-quote will be shared for device replacement, if quote rejected then screening charge of Rs.2,947/- would be applicable”. Exbt.A4 is also a copy of service details dated 25.05.2017 issued by the opposite party to the complainant. Exbt.A5 is a copy of an e-mail letter sent by the opposite party to the complainant. Exbt.B1 is the details of warranty terms and conditions of the Apple I phone produced by the opposite party. Exbt.B2 produced by the opposite party is the tax invoice in which the complainant had paid an amount of Rs.2,113/- towards RTS charges, which is charged by the Repair Centre of the 3^rd opposite party. Exbt. B3 is the details of payment of an amount of Rs.9,843/- dated 20.07.2017 by the complainant to the opposite party.

On an elaborate consideration of the documents produced by the complainant and the opposite party, it is seen that the complainant had purchased an Apple I Phone from the opposite party on 01.06.2016 for an amount of Rs.22,000/- which is undisputed. Eventhough, the complainant had not carry out any expert’s opinion to bring out the actual reason for the damage, the opposite party service providers who are well versed to assess and evaluate the reason for the damage of their product had stated that the damage is caused to the I phone purchased by the complainant due to exertion of weight on it. It is not known as to how they have reached on such a conclusion. The opposite party had charged an amount of Rs.11,955/- being the repair charges of the phone and had returned the phone to the complainant without taking repair after reducing an amount of Rs.3000/- which alone is sufficient to establish the deficiency of service and unfair trade practice sustained to the complainant from the opposite parties. It is thus a very clear case of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Therefore, it is proved that the complainant is subjected to unfair trade practice and deficiency of service from the opposite party since the opposite party had charged an amount of Rs.11,955/- from the complainant for rectifying the defect of the phone purchased by the complainant and returned the phone to the complainant without rectifying the defect within the warranty period of the mobile handset. In addition to this, the complainant had to pay a huge advance amount of Rs.11,955/- to the opposite parties in order to get the phone repaired and returned un-repaired after deducting huge amount from the advance paid by the complainant. That also is a clear case of deficiency of service and unfair trade practice sustained by the complainant from the part of the opposite parties. Hence, point No. (i) is proved in favour of the complainant.

7) Point Nos. (ii) and (iii)

Point No. (ii) and (iii) are taken together for convenience. The complainant had suffered a lot of inconvenience, hardships, mental agony, financial loss etc due to the deficient service and unfair trade practice committed by the opposite party. In that case, the opposite party is found liable to pay compensation and costs of the proceedings to the complainant.

Since the complainant had sustained to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice from the opposite party, we are of the opinion that the opposite party is liable to pay the following reliefs to the complainant.

All these above direction shall be complied by the opposite parties within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order failing which the amount shall attract interest @ 12% p.a till the date of realization.

Pronounced in the open Commission this the 4^th day of March 2021.

Sd/-V.Ramachandran, Member

Sd/-V.S.Manulal, (President-in-charge)

Sd/-Sreevidhia T.N., Member

Forwarded by Order

Senior Superintendent

APPENDIX

Complainants Exhibits

Opposite party's Exhibits:

Date of Despatch ::

By Hand ::

By Post ::