Punjab

Sangrur

CC/186/2019

Bhagwan Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Samwaroa Texpro Private Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Tarun Goyal

29 Aug 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SANGRUR .

 

                                                                        Complaint No. 186

 Instituted on:   29.04.2019

                                                                        Decided on:     29.08.2023

 

Bhagwan Singh son of Ranjit Singh, resident of Ward No.4, Near Stadium, Moonak, Tehsil Moonak, District Sangrur.

                                                          …. Complainant.     

                                                 Versus

 

1.     Sanwaria Texpro Private Limited, Plot No.48, Road No.3, Jigani Industrial Area 2^nd Phase, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore, Karnataka 562106 through its Manager.

2.     Apple India Private Limited, No.24, 19^th Floor, Concorde Tower C, UB City, Vittal Mallya Road, Bangalore-560001 through its Managing Director.

3.     Unicorn Infosolutions Pvt. Ltd. Apple Service Centre, Bhupindra Road, Near Columbia Asia Hospital, Patiala, Punjab 147001.

             ….Opposite parties. 

For the complainant:             : Shri  Tarun Goyal, Adv.              

For OP No.1                        : Exparte.

For OP No.2                        : Shri Sandip K Goyal, Adv.

For OP NO.3.                      : Shri Mukesh Singh.

               

Quorum                                           

Jot Naranjan Singh Gill, President

Sarita Garg, Member

Kanwaljeet Singh, Member

ORDER

SARITA GARG, MEMBER      

1.             Complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite parties pleading that the complainant is a consumer of the OPs by purchasing a mobile set make Apple for Rs.29,799/-  from OP number 1 vide invoice dated 16.10.2018 which was having one year warranty/guarantee.    The grievance of the complainant is that from the very beginning the mobile set in question is not working properly and is suffering with the network problem and as such the complainant approached OP number 3 on 2.12.2018 and the OP number 3 after checking returned the mobile set in question to the complainant but no job order sheet was issued. Again on 10.2.2019 the mobile set in question got switched off and did not turned on for which the complainant approached OP number 3 on 12.2.2019 and after checking the OP returned the mobile set in question stating that it is suffering with liquid damage and returned the mobile set stating it is not covered under the warranty, which is said to be wrong on the part of the OPs.  Though the complainant approached the OP number 3 number of times to set right the mobile set in question, but all in vain. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the Opposite parties be directed to replace/report the mobile set in question or to refund the purchase price/amount of the mobile set i.e. Rs.29,799/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum and further to pay Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony, tension and harassment and further to pay Rs.2,00,000/- on account of litigation expenses.

2.             Record shows that opposite party number 1  did not appear despite service, as such it was proceeded against exparte.

3.             In reply filed by the OP number 2, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is incorrect, vexatious, misleading one and the allegations in the complaint have been denied. It is further stated that the complaint is  malafide one, devoid of merit and contradictory to the established principles of law. It is stated that the mobile set becomes out of warranty if  the damage to the mobile set is caused by accident, abuse, misuse, fire, liquid contact, earthquake or other external cause. It is stated that the complainant approached OP number 3 on 12.2.2019 and after checking it was found that the device damaged due to liquid and device was handled negligently by the complainant, as such the complainant has breached the warranty and violated the terms and conditions. It is stated that the complainant is not entitled for free replacement of the mobile set in question. On merits, sale and purchase of the mobile set in question has been admitted. It is stated that the mobile set in question is out of warranty as it suffered liquid damage and is not covered under the warranty.  Lastly, the OP has prayed that the complaint be dismissed with special costs.

4.             The OP number 3 has also filed the written reply on the same lines as filed by OP number 2.  It is stated further that on 10.2.2019 the customer visited service centre with iphone 6s and reported the issue of lines, sports on the display and rear camera is not working. On diagnosis, the OP replicated the issue and so the device was submitted for further checking and verification, on internal inspection of the customer iphone, the OP found that the device is liquid damaged as both liquid indicators inside the phone were triggered and liquid sign present inside the device. As per apple guidelines liquid damage is considered out of warranty. The device was eligible for while unit replacement under out-of-warranty services as per Apple guidelines. The customer was informed about the same but customer denied for out of warranty service and took back his device on 10.2.2019.  The other allegations leveled in the complaint have been denied.

5.             The learned counsel for the parties produced their respective evidence.

6.             The learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant is a consumer of the OPs by purchasing a mobile set in question from OP number 1 vide invoice dated 16.10.2018, a copy of which on record is Ex.C-2.    The grievance of complainant is that from the very beginning the mobile set in question is not working properly and is suffering with the display problem. Further learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant visited OP number 3  to set right the problem in the mobile set in question, but nothing was done on the ground that the mobile set is liquid damage, but this fact is said to be wrong and illegal. The complainant though tried his best to get set right the mobile set in question from OP number 3, but all in vain. Further to support his case, the complainant has also produced Ex.C-1 as his sworn affidavit. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP number 2 and 3 have vehemently denied the allegations leveled in the complaint and stated that the mobile set suffered liquid damage which is not covered under the warranty and the mobile set is repairable on payment basis, for which the complainant did not agree. Any deficiency in service on the part of the OP has been denied. 

7.             To prove his case, the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit wherein he has stated that the mobile set in question suffered defects during the warranty period i.e. in the very short span of purchase of the mobile set. Ex.C-2 is the copy of invoice which shows that the complainant spent an amount of Rs.29,799/- for purchase of the mobile set in question and Ex.C-3 is the copy of job order wherein it has been clearly mentioned that the complainant reported the defect in the mobile set as lines, spots on the display and rear camera is not working. On the other hand, to rebut this contention of the complainant, OP number 3 has produced Ex.OP3/1 affidavit of Shri Mukesh Singh, authorized representative of OP number 3, wherein he has stated that the mobile set suffered with liquid damage and as such it can be repaired on payment basis.  Ex.EW/1 are the alleged photographs of the mobile set, but it is not clear that it is of the same mobile set as of the complainant. Further the OPs number 2 and 3 have not submitted any detailed report about the mobile set that it is not repairable due to the fault of the complainant.  The fact remains that the complainant spent huge amount of Rs.29,799/- on the mobile set and during the warranty period it stopped working and even the OPs failed to set right the mobile set in question during the warranty period.  There is no detailed explanation from the side of the OPs number 2 and 3 that why they did not repair the mobile set in question. Accordingly, we find it to be a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.   

8.             In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct OP number 2 to replace the mobile set in question with a new one of the same model or to refund to the complainant the cost of mobile set i.e. an amount of Rs.29,799/-. However, it is made clear that the complainant shall be bound to return the defective mobile set alongwith all its accessories/attachments to the OP number 2 at the time of receiving the amount of the mobile set. We further direct OP number 2 to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.2000/- as compensation for mental tension, agony and harassment and litigation expenses. 

9.             The complaint could not be decided within the statutory time period due to heavy pendency of cases.

10.            This order of ours be complied with within a period of sixty days of its communication. A certified copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost as per rules. File be consigned to records.

Pronounced.

                        August 29, 2022.