| Final Order / Judgement | CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION – X GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI UdyogSadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area (Behind Qutub Hotel) New Delhi – 110016 Case No.116/2018 MAHIPAL S/O SH. TARA CHAND R/O VILLAGE GEHLAB, TEHSIL HATHIN, MOHALLA BICHARYA, NEAR RAHUL NURSING HOME, DISTRICT PALWAL, HARYANA- 121103…..COMPLAINANT Vs. - M/s APPLE INDIA PVT. LTD.
THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED PERSON 19 FLOOR, CONCORDE TOWER C UB CITY NO.24, VILLAL MALLYA, ROAD BANGALORE- 560001 - M/S F1 INFO SOLUTIONS AND
SERVICES PVT. LTD. (SERVICE CENTRE) THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED PERSON 201, ASHOK BHAWAN, 93, NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI- 110019 - M/S UNICORN INFOSOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. (SERVICE CENTRE)
THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED PERSON CROWN INTERIORZ SHOPPING MALL 1ST FLOOR, SHOP NO.36-B, SECTOR-35, DELHI MATHURA ROAD, NH-2, FARIDABAD-121003 …..OPPOSITE PARTIES Date of Institution-21.05.2018 Date of Order-06.10.2023 O R D E R RITU GARODIA-MEMBER - The complaint pertains to defects in handset purchased by the complainant.
- The facts as stated in complaint are that the complainant placed an order for a mobile Apple iPhone 6 (Gold, 32GB). He received a handset bearing IMEI No. 359220077648351 on 16.10.2017 after paying an amount of Rs.22,519/-. It is submitted that OP1 is the manufacturer and OP2 and OP3 are authorized service centres of OP1.
- The complainant states that some heat and battery problems started occurring and he took the handset to service centre, OP3, on 31.01.2018. He deposited and received the handset on the same day with assurance that all the problems have been resolved.
- The same problems continued and he visited the service centre (OP3) on 01.02.2018. He deposited the handset on 01.02.2018 and received the handset on 03.02.2018 after repairs.
- The complainant visited the service centre (OP3) again on 02.04.2018 with problems of hanging issue/YouTube issue. He deposited and received the handset on the same day after repairs. He was assured that the operating system has been upgraded and problems have been resolved.
- Complainant again visited OP3 on 10.04.2018 and deposited the phone to resolve the problems of hanging issues, apps freezing issues, battery backup issues, screen partial blackout and heating issues. He received the handset on the same the day with assurance that his problems were resolved.
- As the problems faced by the complainant regarding the handset has not been resolved fully or partially, the complainant visited another authorized centre of OP1, namely OP2. on 17.04.2018. He deposited the handset with OP2 on 17.04.2018 and received the said phone on 19.04.2018. OP2 has replaced the speaker of the phone and returned the same. It is alleged that the speaker was not creating any problem. The problems with the handset were not resolved and he was constrained to send a legal notice dated 27.04.2018. It is further stated that the complainant went 12 times to the authorized service centre.
- Complainant prays for refund of Rs.22,519/- along with interest @24% per annum, compensation of Rs.20,000/- for mental agony and Rs.10,000/- towards litigation expenses.
- OP1 in its reply has stated that it is a company of global repute and is renowned leader in innovation and advancements in the sphere of telecommunication devices, computing and communications. OP1 further submits that the iPhones undergo strict quality test to maintain high standards. It is stated that when the consumers caused damage to products by external factors they cannot claim relief under Consumer Protection Act.
- On merits, it is admitted that complainant purchased a mobile Apple iPhone 6 (Gold, 32GB). He received the handset bearing IMEI No. 359220077648351 on 16.10.2017 from Flipkart for Rs.22,519/-
- It is submitted that complainant approached the authorized service centre (OP3) on 31.01.2018 regarding overheating, hanging and battery draining issues. It is alleged that OP3 diagnosed the device, found no issues and returned the handset back in working condition. It is further stated that the complainant approached OP3 for the same issues on 01.02.2018. It is clarified that OP3 diagnosed the device, found the said issues, repaired the device and returned the same in working condition. The complainant again approached OP3 on 02.04.2018 for issues regarding hanging/ YouTube. OP3 diagnosed the device, found no defects and returned the handset to the complainant in working condition. The complainant again approached OP3 on 10.04.2018 regarding hanging issues, apps freezing issues, battery backup issues, screen partial blackout and heating issues. OP3 diagnosed the device, found the said issues, repaired the said device, restored the device with the latest iTunes and returned the handset in working condition.
- The complainant approached another authorized centre i.e. OP2 on 17.04.2018, regarding the speaker of the device. OP2 diagnosed the device, found the issue, replaced the speaker and returned the handset back to complainant in working condition.
- OP1 submits that, thereafter, the complainant never visited the service centre. OP1 further submits that the complainant’s problems were resolved promptly. OP1 alleges that the problems in the handset were due to complainant’s negligence in handling the device.
- OP2 in its reply, has stated that it provides only back-end services to the manufacturing company i.e. OP1 and is therefore not liable for any defect in the product. OP2 admits that the handset was deposited on 17.04.2018, the problem was rectified and the handset was given back to the complainant on 19.04.2018. OP2 prays for dismissal of complaint.
- Notice was issued to OP3 which was duly served on 10.07.2018. However, OP3 failed to appear and file reply to the complaint.
- Complainant has filed evidence by way of affidavit and has exhibited the following documents:
- Copy of the mobile bill is exhibited as Exhibit Ex.CW-1/A.
- Copy of the Delivery Report/Job Number is exhibited as Exhibit Ex.CW-1/B to Ex.CW-1/E.
- Copy of the Delivery Challan/ Job Number is exhibited as Ex.CW-1/F.
- Copy of the legal notice and postal receipts are exhibited as Ex.CW-1/G (Colly).
- Copy of complaint is exhibited as Ex.CW-1/H.
- OP1 has filed evidence by way of affidavit and has not exhibited any document.
- Copy of the Board Resolution is exhibited as Annexure-R1.
- Applicable warranty provisions/ terms are annexed as Annexure-R2.
- Copy of service report and delivery report are annexed as Annexure-R3 to Annexure-R10.
- Copy of service report is annexed as Annexure-R11.
- OP2 has filed evidence by way of affidavit and has not exhibited any document.
- The Commission has considered the pleadings and documents on record. It is undisputed that complainant purchased/received an Apple iPhone 6 (Gold, 32 GB) on 16.10.2017 for Rs.22,519/- as per the invoice filed by complainant.
- It is undisputed that the complainant visited OP3, the authorized service centre, on 31.01.2018. The said job sheet shows that the handset is within warranty.
Problem reported by customer:- Over heat issue, hanging issue, battery fast drain The action taken is- Reset/restore with latest iTunes in DFU mode, user iPhone diagnosis and found user iPhone is working fine, so device is return to customer. - It is undisputed that complainant visited OP3 again the next day i.e. 01.02.2018. The handset was returned on 03.02.2018.
Problem reported by customer:- Over heat issue, hanging issue, battery fast drain The action taken is: Reset and restore the device with latest iTunes, during diagnosis all the test pas and check with manually and power adapter compared with known good accessories found use iPhone accessory working fine, return to the customer. - Complainant again visited OP3 on 02.04.2018.
Problem reported by customer:- Hanging issue/YouTube issue. The action taken is- Reset/restore with latest iTunes in DFU mode, user iPhone diagnosis and found user iPhone is working fine, so device is return to customer. - Complainant again visited OP3 on 10.04.2018.
Problem reported by customer:- hanging issues, apps freezing issues, battery backup issues, screen partial blackout and heating issues. The action taken is-Reset/restore with latest iTunes in DFU mode, user iPhone diagnosis and found user iPhone is working fine, so device is return to customer. - The complainant visited OP2 service centre on 17.04.2018.
Problem reported by customer:- speaker distortion (while using call time,) The action taken is- speaker replaced - It is evident that complainant face problem with handset within 4 months of the purchase of handset. The complainant visited OP service centre several times.
- On 31.01.2018, the complainant visited OP3 with the problems of overheating, hanging and draining of battery. OP3 resolved it by restoring the latest iTunes in DFU mode. OP1 in its reply has submitted that service centre has found no issues with the handset contrary to the repairs mentioned in job sheet and the device was returned on the same day.
- The complainant again visited OP3 service centre on 01.02.2018, i.e. next day for the same problems which were not resolved. OP3 again restored the device with latest iTunes and handed the iPhone back to the complainant. OP1 submits in its reply that on this day, problems were diagnosed and handset was repaired.
- The complainant again visited OP3 service centre on 02.04.2018 with hanging/YouTube issues. The OP3 again restored the phone with the latest iTunes. It is submitted by OP1 in its reply that no defects were found in handset contrary to remarks mentioned in job sheet.
- The complainant once again went to OP3 service centre on 10.04.2013 with the problems of hanging, apps freezing, battery backup issues, screen partial blackout and heating issues. OP3 service centre again restored the iTunes. It is stated by OP1 in its reply that all problems faced by the complainant were resolved.
- As the problems of the complainant were not resolved, he went to another service centre of OP1 i.e. OP2 with problems of speaker distortion. OP2 service centre replaced the speaker.
- It is manifestly clear that complainant has visited OP1s service centre multiple times for problems like hanging, overheating etc. but OP2 service centre has restored the iTunes every time without rectifying the problems faced by the complainant. The complainant also changed the service centre but his problems were not rectified. The complainant also sent a legal notice but no reply was received.
- Hon’ble NCDRC in Wipro Limited Vs. Toppers Multimedia (P) Limited & Ors. First Appeal No.372 of 2004 decided on 10/2/2010 has observed:
This set of customer call feedback reports and correspondence is ample proof of repeated failures of various key components of some equipment or the other supplied by respondent No. 3 to the complainant, almost immediately after the initial supply and installation. The frequent visits of the appellant's engineers to rectify the defects or replace the defective components/sub-systems from time-to-time can lead to the only conclusion that if not the entire set of equipment supplied by the dealer/ respondent No. 3, at least most of the basic components/sub-systems of the computer hardware was defective ah initio. This leads us to conclude, in agreement with the State Commission, that the hardware supplied to the complainant at the cost of Rs. 8,30,855 suffered from various manufacturing defects and several problems noticed from time-to-time persisted despite frequent change of components/sub-systems. - Hon’ble National Commission in Sony Ericson India Ltd. Versus Ashish Aggarwal 2007(4) CPJ (NC) 294 has observed: a mobile set purchased by the complainant started giving troubles, as a result of which battery and charger of the handset were changed. Next time, the hand set was again taken with a problem in keypad, as a result of which the handset itself was replaced by a new one. It was the case of the complainant that even new handset was not working properly. The opposite party was willing to replace the handset with a new one, but the complainant apprehending the continuous trouble from the handset, filed the complaint. Under those circumstances, it was held by the Hon’ble National Commission that deficiency in services on the part of the Opposite party was writ large, duly supported by the factum that even after changing components and change of the hand set, the problem was not solved as the handset was not working properly.
- OP1 has further stated that troubles occurred with the handset due to complainant’s negligence in handling the device. OP has not produced any documentary evidence which shows that the said problem occurred due to mishandling the set in question by the complainant. In Nokia Vs. Ankush Kapoor and Others. 2007(1) CPJ 120 Hon’ble State Commission Chandigarh has held that defects in the mobile set could not be rectified in spite of being repaired twice and as such handset suffered from inherent defects and the complaint was rightly allowed.
- In the current situation, it is clear that the complainant made multiple visits to the OP service centre, where they consistently updated iTunes on their device. Frustrated with the lack of resolution, the complainant even switched to a different service centre. At this new service canter, an issue with the handset's speaker was identified and subsequently replaced. However, none of the service centres effectively addressed the ongoing problems of overheating, hanging, and rapid battery drainage. OP1, the manufacturer, has at times contradicted the report from its own authorized service centres. Simply making a general statement about repairs conducted will not be sufficient for OP1 to substantiate their claims.
- Hence, we find OP1 guilty of selling defective product requiring multiple services and direct it to refund Rs.22,519/- with 9% interest from the date of complaint till realization. We also direct OP1 to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical inconvenience and Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses.
- File be consigned to record room.
| |
