District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.
Consumer Complaint No.96/2022.
Date of Institution: 18.02.2022.
Date of Order: 23.11.2022.
Parveen Kumar S/o late Shri Ranbir R/o House No. 107, Village Sahupura, Faridabad.
…….Complainant……..
Versus
1. Fine Electornics, At Ambedkar Chowk, Ballabgarh having GSTIN NO. 06ACUPG5694G123 through its proprietor/Authorised Signatory.
2. Apple India Pvt. Ltd., 19th floor, Concorde Tower C, U.B. City No.24, Vittal Malya Road, Bangalore – 560001, India through its Director/Managing Director/principal Officer.
…Opposite parties……
Complaint under section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Now amended Section 34 of Consumer protection Act 2019.
BEFORE: Amit Arora……………..President
Mukesh Sharma…………Member.
Indira Bhadana………….Member.
PRESENT: Sh. Dilraj Singh, counsel for the complainant.
Opposite party No.1 ex-parte vide order dated 22.08.2022.
Sh. K.S.Rathore, counsel for opposite party No.2.
ORDER:
The facts in brief of the complaint are that the complainant purchased a mobile iphone 11, 64 GB white make Apple bearing its IMEI No. 355183489933585 for the total sale consideration of Rs.52,000/- from opposite party No.1 vide bill/invoice receipt No. 05663 dated 08.07.2021. The total payment of aforesaid mobile handset was made by the complainant vide his HDFC card. At the time of purchasing of the said mobile handset the opposite party No.1 had given the minimum guarantee/warranty for the period of one year from the date of purchasing of the said mobile. On 28.01.2022 the complainant came to know that in the aforesaid mobile handset had started manufacturing defects as handing problem as well as mike problem during the phone calls and on 31.01.2022 the voice in the mike of aforesaid mobile handset had been completely damaged and it stopped the functions and the said mobile handset did not on again after the complainant. On 31.01.2022 the complainant visited the office of the opposite party NO.2 and requested them to cure/repair the manufacturing defects crated in the above mobile phone then the officials of opposite party No.2 had received the above said mobile phone vide receipt/job NO. FDB9351482 dated 31.01.2022 and assured the complainant to repair the manufacturing defects of the abovesaid mobile till 14.02.2022. At the time of receiving the defective mobile phone by the officials of the opposite party No.2, they had been provided iphone XR, 64 GB, Sr. No. GQRGP01VKKK2 mobile handset to the complainant only for using till the repair of mobile handset of the complainant. On 10.02.2022 the complainant again visited the office of the opposite party No.2 and requested the officials of opposite party No.2 to return the mobile handset after curing the aforesaid manufacturing defects then the officials of opposite party No.2 refused to
accept the request of the complainant. Thereafter the complainant visited the office of the opposite party No.2 time and again but the officials of the opposite party No.2 had not returned the aforesaid mobile handset to the complainant after repairing the manufacturing hanging defects and they had refused to cure the manufacturing hanging defects in the aforesaid mobile phone and they told that they sent his iphone to Apple Repair Centre but they found some internal damage in iphone. After this the complainant asked through email from the officials of the opposite party No.2 then the officials of the opposite party No.2 clearly denied to give any information regarding the internal damage to the complainant. The aforesaid act of opposite parties amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint. The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite parties to:
a) cure the manufacturing hanging defects and mike problem narrated above or to replace the same iphone with a brand new iphone to the complainant or to refund the bill amount of iphone 11 for a sum of Rs.52,000/- alongiwth interest to the complainant.
b) not to close/block the iphone XR provided the complainant only for use till curing the defects of mobile handset iphone 11 of the complainant or to replace the same iphone with a brand new iphone to the complainant as the opposite parties assured.
c) pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .
d) pay Rs. 11,000 /-as litigation expenses.
2. Notice issued to opposite party No.1 on 15.07.2022 not received back either served or unserved. Tracking details filed in which it had been mentioned
that “Item delivery confirmed”. Mandatory period of 30 days expired. Therefore, opposite party No.1 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 22.08.2022.
3. Opposite party No.2 put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite party No.2 refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that the complainant had purchased an iphone 11 White 64 GB bearing IMEI No. 355183489933585 on 08.07.2021 from the opposite party No.1. the complainant alleged that he had some buttom mic sound problem on his device. He approached the Apple Authorised Service Provider (AASP) i.e. Unicorn Info Solutions Pvt. Ltd. On 31.01.2022. the said AASP checked his device for the said issue and informed the complainant that the device had to be sent to the Centralized Repair Centre (RC) of the opposite party No.2 at bengaluru for further inspection. During this period when the said device was with the RC, the complainant was provided with an iphone XR as a loaner device for the period till he received the original device back form the AASP. The RC upon internal inspection of said device, found that it had unauthorized modifications and tampering , due to which it was out of warranty and could not be repaired/serviced under warranty. The AASP informed the complainant that this device was out of warranty, as per the findings of the RC, due to which it was not eligible for free repair/service under warranty and he would had to pay for any such service/repair. The complainant was aware that as per the terms and conditions of the warranty and effused to pay for the said service/repair and insisted on the free repair, which was refused by the AASP, citing that the said device was out of warranty. Despite being aware of the same, the complainant filed this complaint. Opposite party No. 2 denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. The parties led evidence in support of their respective versions.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.
6. In this case the complaint was filed by the complainant against opposite parties– Fine Electronics with the prayer to: a) cure the manufacturing hanging defects and mike problem narrated above or to replace the same iphone with a brand new iphone to the complainant or to refund the bill amount of iphone 11 for a sum of Rs.52,000/- alongwith interest to the complainant. b) not to close/block the iphone XR provided the complainant only for use till curing the defects of mobile handset iphone 11 of the complainant or to replace the same iphone with a brand new iphone to the complainant as the opposite parties assured. c) pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment . d) pay Rs. 11,000 /-as litigation expenses.
To establish his case the complainant has led in his evidence, Ex.CW1/A – affidavit of Shri Parveen Kumar, Ex.C-1 – Tax Invoice dated 08.07.2021,Ex.C-2 – Loaner Device Agreement,
On the other hand counsel for the opposite party No.2 strongly
agitated and opposed. As per the evidence of the opposite party No.2 Ex.R-1 – Letter of Authorization, Ex.R2 – Service report, Ex.R-3 - one year warranty.
7. In this complaint, the complaint was filed by the complainant with the prayer to cure the manufacturing hanging defects and mike problem narrated above or to replace the same iphone with a brand new iphone to the
complainant or to refund the bill amount of iphone 11 for a sum of Rs.52,000/- alongwith interest to the complainant.
8. It is evident from Tax Invoice dated 08.07.2021 vide Ex.C1 that the complainant purchased a mobile iphone 11, 64 GB white make Apple bearing its IMEI No. 355183489933585 for the total sale consideration of Rs.52,000/- from opposite party No.1 vide bill/invoice receipt No. 05663 dated 08.07.2021. As per Loaner Device Agreement dated 31.01.2022 vide Ex,C-2 that opposite party No.2 had received the above said mobile phone vide receipt/job NO. FDB9351482 dated 31.01.2022 and assured the complainant to repair the manufacturing defects of the abovesaid mobile till 14.02.2022. At the time of receiving the defective mobile phone by the officials of the opposite party No.2, they had been provided iphone XR, 64 GB, Sr. No. GQRGP01VKKK2 mobile handset to the complainant only for using till the repair of mobile handset of the complainant. Oopposite party No.2 had not returned the aforesaid mobile handset to the complainant after repairing the manufacturing hanging defects and they had refused to cure the manufacturing hanging defects in the aforesaid mobile phone and they told that they sent his iphone to Apple Repair Centre but they found some internal damage in iphone. After this the complainant asked through email from the officials of the opposite party No.2 then the officials of the opposite party No.2 clearly denied to give any information regarding the internal damage to the complainant.
9. Keeping in view of the above submissions, the Commission is of the opinion that lodging of several complaints as well as personal visits to opposite party ipso facto go to prove that the mobile phone in question had a manufacturing defect which was not removed by the opposite parties. As such, there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence complaint is allowed.
10. Opposite parties Nos.1 & 2, jointly & severally, are directed to replace the mobile phone in question with a new one of the same model, subject to return the old mobile phone which was given by the opposite party to the complainant at the time of receiving the defective mobile phone within 30 (thirty) days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs.2200/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment alongwith Rs.2200/- as litigation expenses. Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs. File be consigned to the record room
Announced on: 23.11.2022 (Amit Arora)
President
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Mukesh Sharma)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Indira Bhadana)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
