DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 17th day of January, 2024.
Present : Sri Vinay Menon .V, President.
: Smt. Vidya.A., Member.
: Sri. Krishnankutty N .K, Member.
Date of filing:23/07/2021.
CC/108/2021
Sreegesh.K.S,
S/o.Sreedjaran.K.P, Kottilaprambil, - Complainant
Thirumittacode (PO), Kottanad (via),
Palakkad Dist.-679 533.
(By Adv.P. Sreeprakash).
Vs
1. The Manager and Managing Director, - Opposite Parties
Imagine-Apple Authorised Reseller,
A Division of Ample Technologies Private Limited,
GS-19, Ground Floor,
Shobha City Mall,
Thrissur-Kunnamkulam,
Puzhakkal, Thrissur-680 553.
(By Adv.K.Dhanajayan)
2. The Manager and Managing Director,
Apple India Private Limited, No.24,
UB City Vittal Mallya Road,
Bangalore-560 001.
(By Adv.K.K.Thankappan)
ORDER
By Smt.Vidya A., Member
1. Pleadings of the complainant in brief:-
The complainant purchased a new ‘iphone 12’ from ‘Imagine Store’, Thrissur (the 1st opposite party) on 30.03.2021. The phone developed problems within few days of its purchase. The speaker of the phone was not working and the phone had heating issue while using. The complainant returned the phone to the 1st opposite party on 09.04.2021 and asked for replacement of the mobile phone with a new one. But they did not agree with replacement and agreed to repair it. They returned the phone after repair on 16.04.2021. The speaker of the phone was replaced, but the heating issue persisted. So, the complainant again returned the phone to the 1st opposite party shop. The IMEI number of the phone was changed after repair and the complainant was not satisfied with their service. After service, the complainant lost all his contacts, bills relating to money transactions and photos in the phone and the opposite party has not warned about the loss of data while giving it for repair. He purchased this phone for an amount of Rs.81,261/- with a monthly loan payment of Rs.3,475/- with the HDFC Bank. He also purchased a charger, screen guard and a pouch amounting to Rs.6,000/-. Even after spending such huge amount, the complainant could not use the phone due to its heating issue. According to the complainant, the issues in the phone is due to its manufacturing defect and the complainant had suffered mental agony and financial loss on account of the defect in the phone. So, he filed this complaint for getting a total compensation of Rs.4,99,000/-.
2. Complaint was admitted and notices were issued to the opposite parties. The opposite parties entered appearance and filed version.
3. The 1st opposite party in their version contended that they are the authorized dealers of Apple Products in India. The complainant bought an ‘iphone 12’ from Imagine Store, a division of OP1 at Thrissur on 30.03.2021.
After using the phone for nearly two weeks, the complainant approached the 1st opposite party on 09.04.2021 stating that the ‘device Mic’ of the phone was not functioning and the phone had heating issues and battery drainage. At the time of receiving the phone, the complainant was specifically informed to back-up all the datas and if any liquid damages or unauthorized modification is found during diagnosis, the service will be payable.
It was only after approval from the customer to erase the data and agreeing on terms and conditions, a Repair Acceptance Form(RAF) was generated. On inspection, the phone passed all functional tests and no anomalies were found except the failure of audio test-button mic. The phone was sent to repair centre and the iphone rear system was replaced with a new S.No.DNPF701WOF11.
It is a standard procedure to install a new IMEI Number when changing the rear system S.No. in iphone. Thereafter, a service report was generated on 15.04.2021 after completion of service and an automated e-mail is sent to the registered e-mail id of the owner about the completion of service so that the owner can arrange pick up of the phone. On 16.04.2021, the phone was handed over to the complainant to his complete satisfaction. On 22/04/2021, the complainant again approached the 1st opposite party alleging the heating issue in the phone and another RAF was generated. Apple phone have an in built temperate alert system to trigger when there is over or abnormal heating. The particular model is equipped with one such feature that would flash a warning in case of over heating up of the phone which was not flashed in this particular complaint or any triggers detected during diagnosis.
After inspection, no abnormal heating issue was found and a service report was generated on 29.07.2021 with an e-mail to the complainant. But the complainant did not pick up the phone and within two days, complete lock-down was declared.
Since it is against the company policy to keep the phone for long duration after service, the 1st opposite party attempted to return the phone and the delay in returning the phone cannot be attributed to them. The collection of the phone after intimation of service is the responsibility of the complainant and OP1 is not responsible for that.
All repairs were done to the complete satisfaction of the complainant and there is no Deficiency in Service on the part of the opposite party.
The complaint is without any bonafides and it has to be dismissed with cost of OP1.
4. The 2nd opposite party raised the following contentions in their version;
The present complaint is not maintainable as the complainant has failed to provide vital information of the ‘iphone’ like serial No./IMEI No. which very important to trace out the model and repair history of the ‘iphone’. In these circumstances, the 2nd opposite party is unable to trace the grievance made by the complainant. Further, the complainant has not produced documents like Job sheet for showing that the complainant has entrusted the phone with Apple Authorised service provider and service/delivery reports to show that they have conducted diagnosis and final result of the diagnosis. The complaint is frivolous and vexatious and it has to be dismissed.
Later on, the 2nd opposite party filed detailed version and it was rejected.
5. From the pleadings of both parties, the following points arise for consideration:
(1) Whether the complainant’s phone is suffering from any manufacturing defect and whether he has succeeded in proving this?
(2) Whether there is any Deficiency In Service on the part of the OPs ?
(3) Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs claimed?
(4) Any other reliefs ?
6. Complainant filed proof affidavit and Exts.A1 & A2 marked. Complainant filed IA.No.465/2022 for the appointment of an Expert Commissioner for inspection of the phone and it was allowed. The report by the Expert Commissioner is marked as Ext.C1. OPs also filed proof affidavit and Exts.B1 to B3 marked from their side.
7. Point No.1
The complainant purchased an ‘iphone’ and its accessories from the 1st opposite party on 30.03.2021 for an amount of Rs.90,180/-. Ext.A1 Tax Invoice issued by the 1st opposite party shows the purchase of ‘iphone’ worth Rs.83,400/-, Adapter costing Rs.1,800/-, iphone case costing Rs.3,190/- and shock proof case worth Rs.1,790/-. Complainant had spent a total amount of Rs.90,180/- for the purchase. Complainant’s grievance is that the mobile phone developed some issues within few days of its purchase. The speaker of the phone was not working and also the phone gets heated while using.
The OPs in their version contended that on 09.04.2021 the complainant approached the 1st opposite party stating the above issues. A Repair Acceptance Form was generated and on inspection, the phone passed all functional tests and no anomalies were found except the failure of audio test button mic. The phone was sent for repair and on 16.04.2021, it was handed over to the complainant after repair to his complete satisfaction.
8. Ext.A2 is the Repair Acceptance Form dated 09.04.2021 in which the Problem Reported is shown as “customer reported device mic is not working, over heating issue and battery draining-IW/data not committed need to check”. Another Repair Acceptance form dated 22.04.2021 also produced by the complainant in which the problem reported is “customer facing heating issue after rear system replacement. Customer is demanding for whole as the IMEI is changed. 1W need to check.”
The opposite party also produced the Repair Acceptance Forms which were marked as Exts.B2 & B3. Ext.B2 is the same as Ext.A2. Ext.B3 Diagnosis details states “Run Apple functional tests and found device failed in audio test-Bottom Mic. Checked physical condition and found no anomalies. Hence, device needs to be sent to the repair centre for further diagnosis.” Hence, replaced the ‘iphone’ rear system.
9. Even though the opposite party contended that after detailed diagnostic tests, they replaced the rear system of the ‘iphone’ with a new one and resolved the issues in the phone, no evidence was adduced in support of this. They further contended that when the complainant approached them for the 2nd time with the heating issues in the phone, they conducted tests like Apple functional tests, HDI (Hardware Diagnostic Interface) and ICC (Integrated Current Checker) tests and serial number reader tests and found that the ‘iphone’ has passed all the tests mentioned above.
But they had not adduced the tests results before the Commission to prove that the test results were satisfactory and that the phone was in good condition.
10. Inorder to prove his contention, complainant filed an application for the appointment of an expert Commissioner to inspect the phone and it was allowed. The Commissioner’s report is marked as Ext.C1. The Commissioner has reported that;
“On inspection, it is found that
1) The speaker of the mobile phone is found not working.
2) While the camera is turned for more than two minutes, the mobile phone gets unduly heated up causing discomfort to the user”.
11. The opposite parties filed objection to Commission report. But it was rejected as it was filed belatedly. Eventhough they have stated that the Commissioner has not detailed the methods and tests conducted by him to arrive at the conclusion, they had failed to initiate any steps to cross examine the Expert Commissioner. Further, they admit that the complainant approached them with the issues in the phone on 09.04.2021. The phone was purchased on 30.03.2021 which shows that the phone became defective within few days itself, from the date of purchase.
12. In Ext.C1, the Expert Commissioner has confirmed the issues relating to speaker of the mobile phone and heating. Since the issues started within few days of its purchase, it can be attributed to manufacturing defect. The complainant has succeeded in proving the defects alleged by him to be true. Point No.1 is decided in favour of the complainant.
13. Points 2 to 5 are considered together.
Eventhough the opposite party contended that they have rectified the defects to the satisfaction of the complainant, they did not adduce any evidence in support of their contention. As per Ext.C1, the issues in the phone as alleged by the complainant are found to be true. So, there is Deficiency In Service on the part of the opposite party in not curing the defects/replacing the phone.
The complainant would have definitely suffered mental along when the newly purchased, highly expensive ‘iphone’ became defective within few days of its purchase. He had financial loss in purchasing the phone and additional financial burden due to this litigation. The opposite parties are bound to compensate the complainant for that.
In the result, complaint is allowed. We direct the opposite parties 1 and 2 jointly and severally.
ii) To pay Rs.90,180/- being the value of ‘iphone’ and its accessories together with 10% interest from 23.07.2021 (date of complaint) till realisation.
iii) We further direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation for their Deficiency In Service, Rs.20,000/- for the mental agony suffered by the complainant and Rs.20,000/- as the cost of the litigation.
The above amounts are to be paid within 45 days of receipt of this order, failing which the opposite parties are liable to give Rs.500/-as solatium per month or part thereof till the date of payment.
Pronounced in open court on this the 17th day of January, 2024.
Sd/-
Vinay Menon .V,
President.
Sd/-
Vidya .A,
Member.
APPENDIX
Documents marked from the side of the complainant:
Ext.A1: The original Tax Invoice dated 30.03.2021 issued by Imagine Apple authorized seller.
Ext.A2: Repair acceptance form issued by Apple technology Pvt. Ltd. puzhakkal, Thrissur.
Ext.A3: Commission Report dated on 21.11.2022.
Documents marked from the side of the 2nd opposite party:
Ext.B1: Letter of Authorization, Manager and duly authorised representative of Apple India Pvt. Ltd. the 2nd opposite party.
Ext.B2: Copy of the Repair Acceptance Form (RAF) dated 09.04.2021.
Ext.B3: Copy of the Service Report dated 15.04.2021 issued to the complainant.
Ext.C1: Commission Report.
Witness examined from the side of the complainant : Nil
Witness examined from the side of the opposite party : Nil
Court Witness: Nil
Cost : 20,000/-
NB: Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.
