District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.
Consumer Complaint No.263/2022.
Date of Institution: 17.05.2022.
Date of Order: 23.11.2022.
Neeru Chawla wife of Shri Ashok Chawla R/o House No. 544, Sector-10, Housing Board Colony, Faridabad.
…….Complainant……..
Versus
1. M/s. Apple India Private Limited (Head office) 19th floor, Concorde Tower-=C, UB City No. 24, Vittal Mallya Road, Bangalore – 560001, Karnataka.
2. M/s. I Delta Service Centre (Service Centre) Ground floor, SCO No.14, near green Channel, sEctor-16, Faridabad, Haryana – 121002 – proforma opposite party.
3. M/s. Deep Paras Electro Vision 19-20 (Dealer) Shop NO. 942, YMCA road, Faridabad City 121006 through its authorized person.
…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. Ashish Arora , counsel for the complainant.
Ms. Anu Anu Bagai, counsel for opposite party No.1.
Opposite party No.2 proforma opposite party.
Opposite party No.3 proforma opposite party.
ORDER:
The facts in brief of the complaint are that the complainant purchased a Apple I pone Red 64 GB Red. IMEI serial No. 356577102090443 on dated 12.03.2020 from Deep Paras Electro Vision 19-20 the total amount of bill was Rs.64,900/- from Faridabad. One fine day the complainant face problem by using apple I phone 11 as power key or volume key working on and off basis & proper not functioning but later its working properly, still for the precautionary measure the complainant visited to the opposite party No.2 who was authorized centre of opposite party No.1 and briefed about the above concerned problems which the complainant faced problem earlier for power key or volume key functioning. On dated 05.08.2020 after checking thoroughly for an hour the opposite party No.2 updated to the complainant that mobile Apple I phone 11 working in proper condition and advised to the complainant it would be check properly their head office for future safety on the assurance of opposite party No.2 to the complainant agreed to deposit the phone with opposite party No.2 for further checkup, afterward the opposite party No.2 issued service record vide reference ID No. RN9K0HU2BY and it was assured by the opposite party No.2 that till 10th August mobile phone of the complainant would be returned after proper check up on dated 5.8.2020 at 2:49 with detail checklist which contains as belows:
1. Device was powering on Yes
2. Power button was working Yes
3. Volume keys were working Yes
4. Display was working Yes
5. Touch screen was working yes
6. Speaker was working Yes
7. Charging part was working Yes
8. Headphone jack was working Yes
9. Back cover damaged or broken No
10. Body was damaged or has dents No
11. Screw heads were damaged or missing No
12. Sim ray was damaged or missing No
On 08.08.2020, the complainant surprised and shocking as received a call from the opposite party No.1 vide call NO. 008001009009 that the complainant Apple I Phone II could not repaired. It was surprised and shocking to the complainant that Apple I phone was handed over to the opposite party No.2 on 05.08.2020 in proper working condition, which was acknowledged by opposite party No.2 while issuing service report. Still the opposite party No.1 demanded Rs.42,000/- for replacement charges although the complainant phone was in guarantee & warrantee as per the terms and conditions of the opposite party No.2. Opposite party No.1 taken another plea of water in I phone with a motto to grab hard earn money of the complainant to crate false and fabricated story to cheat the complainant. Although at the time of handing over Iphone for checkup it was mentioned by the complainant that its only power key and volume key problem only once in a while and not facing problem on regular basis. The complainant felt cheated and shocked after receiving call from the opposite party No.1 that the complainant mobile Apple I phone could not be repaired as it was completely damaged and opposite party No.1 demanded from the complainant for Rs.42,000/-. It was shocking to the complainant that as the opposite parties claimed big thing on promotion of the opposite parties apple I phone at various platforms. The opposite party not returning the complainant Apple I phone 11 in working conditions inspite of that the complainant that Apple I phone 11 was handed over to the opposite parpty No.2 on 5.8.2020 in proper working condition, which was acknowledge by opposite party No.2 while issuing service report. Still the opposite party No.1 demanded Rs.42,000/- for repairing and replacement charges although the complainant was n guarantee and in warrantee as per the terms and conditions of the opposite parties. The complainant sent legal notice dated 13.08.2020 to the opposite parties through registered posit but all in vain. 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) provide the new branded Apple I Phone 11 64 GB to the complainant or returned hard earned money of Rs.64,900/- alongwith interest @ 24% p.a. to the complainant.
b) pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment and for illegal and arbitrary demand of Rs.42,000/- for replacement of Apple I phone.
c) pay Rs. 11,000 /-as litigation expenses.
2. Opposite party No.1 put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite party No.1 refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that the complainant i.e. Ms. Neeru Chawla alleges that she purchased an Apple I phone 11 (Red, 64 GB, IMEI No. 356577102090443) (subject phone) on 12.03.2020, the sale price of which was INR 64,900/- inclusive of taxes, from R1. It was stated that the R# was not an authorized reseller of R1. It was further stated that the said subject phone was accompanied by a one year standard manufacturer warranty issued by the R1. It was stated that one Mr. Gaurav Chawla (wrongly mentioned as Gaurav Chauhan in the service record) approached the R2, an apple authorized service provider of R1 on 05the August 2020, seeking support service in respect of the issue of “power and volume keys of the subject phone not working” faced by the complainant. After conducting an initial inspection, TheR2 informed Mr. Chawla that the subject phone would be sent for a visual and mechanical inspection in order to detect the cause of issue which could not be determined on the initial examination. Pertinently, a service record of the same date was issued to the complainant which clearly stated that the subject phone was subject to technical verification and should be covered under warranty only if no physical damage/liquid damage/unauthorized modification was found on the subject phone. Admittedly, the complainant was informed on 8th August 2020 that the subject phone would be liable for an out of warranty service due to liquid damage in the subject phone which fell outside the scope of the warranty terms and conditions. However, upon being informed of the same, the complainant refused to make any additional payment for such service. It was stated that the damage as inspected and identified by R2 was not a manufacturing defect. Therefore, R1 was not liable to exchange/replace or refund the unit sale price of the subject phone as the damage was caused not on account of “defects in materials and workmanship” and hence no liability was attributable to the R1. It was reiterated that it was clearly communicated to the complainant that the subject phone was not eligible for replacement without payment of applicable costs as there was liquid damage which was expressly excluded from the purview of the Apple Warranty. Opposite party No. 1 denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. Shri Ashish Arora, counsel for the complainant has made a statement on 26.7.2022 that I want to opposite party No.2 i.e M/s. Delta Service centre as proforma opposite party.
4. Shri Ashish Arora, counsel for the complainant has made a statement on 9.8.2022 that “I want of make opposite party No.3 as proforma opposite party.
5. The parties led evidence in support of their respective versions.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.
7. In this case the complaint was filed by the complainant against opposite parties–Apple India Private Limited with the prayer to: a) provide the new branded Apple I Phone 11 64 GB to the complainant or returned hard earned money of Rs.64,900/- alongwith interest @ 24% p.a. to the complainant. b) pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment and for illegal and arbitrary demand of Rs.42,000/- for replacement of Apple I phone. c) pay Rs. 11,000 /-as litigation expenses.
To establish his case the complainant has led in his evidence, Ex.CW1/A – affidavit of Neeru Chawla, Ex.C1 – Tax invoice, Ex.C-2 – Service record, Ex.C-3 – legal notice, Ex.C-4 – postal receipt, Ex.C-5 – Adhaar card.
On the other hand counsel for the opposite party No.1 strongly
agitated and opposed. As per the evidence of the opposite party No.1 affidavit of Shri Sandeep Karmakar, c/o Apple India Private Limited, 19th floor, Concorde Tower C, UB City No.24, Vittal Mallya Road, Bengaluru, Ex.DW1/1 - Minutes of the Board meeting, Ex.DW1/2 – Apple One(1) year limited warranty, Ex.DW1/3 – Service record, Ex.DW1/4 (page 21-22) – photograph, Ex.DW1/5 - Water and other liquid damage to iphone or ipod isn’t covered by warranty.
8. It is evident from Tax invoice vide Ex.C-1, the complainant purchased a Apple I pone Red 64 GB Red. IMEI serial No. 356577102090443 on dated 12.03.2020 from Deep Paras Electro Vision 19-20 the total amount of bill was Rs.64,900/- from Faridabad. It is evident from Service Record vide Ex.DW1/3 in which it has been mentioned in the checklist with detail checklist which contains as belows:
1. Select the repair classification Yes
2. Device was powering on Yes
3. Power button was working Yes
4. Volume keys were working Yes
5. Display was working Yes
6. Touch screen was working yes
7. Speaker was working Yes
8. Charging part was working Yes
9. Headphone jack was working Yes
10. Back cover damaged or broken No
11. Body was damaged or has dents No
12. Screw heads were damaged or missing No
13. Sim ray was damaged or miss No.
It is also mentioned in the service record vide Ex.DW1/3 that in “Issue Reported by customer:
Category Description
Other 1. Power Key and volume Key Issue
On the other hand, counsel for opposite party also objected that in Ex. DW1/3 – in which it has been mentioned in disclaimer column:
1. Contact details provided by the customer will be shared to Apple for review and/or feedback.
2. This equipment is accepted subject to repair terms and conditions mentioned on website, printed overleaf or attached in e-mail alongwith digital service record and digital delivery report sent on customer email ID.
3. The service provider will not be responsible for any data loss.
4. Subject to Engineer’s inspection.
5. Quality program repairs will not cover all defective parts on non chargeable basis. Only parts covered under quality program premise will be covered as non chargeable post inspection is completed by engineer.
9. After going through the evidence led by the parties, the Commission is of the opinion that it has been mentioned vide Ex.DW1/3 that in “Issue Reported by customer:
Category Description
Other 1. Power Key and volume Key Issue
It has not been mentioned that mobile phone in question is water damage vide Ex.DW1/3. The mobile phone in question is within the warranty period. Hence, the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party has been proved. Resultantly, the complaint is allowed.
10. Opposite party is directed to:
a) replace the mobile phone in question with new one to the complainant of the same price
b). pay Rs.1100/- as compensation for causing mental agony & harassment.
c) pay Rs.2200/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. The complainant is also directed to hand over the old mobile phone in question to the opposite party No.1 after receipt of the copy of the order. Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 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.
