CONSUMER COMPLAIN Nelson Lopes from Salcete approached the South Goa District Consumer Dispute Redressal forum complaining about lack of quality service provided by the customer care cell of the authorized dealer and authorize service provider of Apple in the Margao.
Lopes said that he had approached the authorized dealer of Apple at Margoa within three months of purchase of his iPhone4 complaining about the charging port problem. The costly iPhone purchased from a reputed manufacturer was malfunctioning and defective after limited use within a period of two months, said Lopes. Besides the service provider displayed gross indifference by ignoring the expected customer service and not providing written report or either returning or replacing the unit during assurance of warranty period. He said that service provider neither gave terms and conditions for repairs nor the specific provisions of warranty at the time of purchase in order to make informed decisions. According to Lopes the above act amounted to holding a customer hostage as the warranty is not honoured and without being specific on such conditions affecting the functioning of the iPhone. Upon being served by the complaint the authorized dealer, customer care unit, authorized service providers of the Apple filed their respective defenses. As per the defense the authorized dealers were not responsible for post sale service and therefore, they ought to be exonerated of the charge of deficiency of service. The defense further said that the iPhone was brought by the complainant on July 27 2013 with the complaint that it was not charging was found to contain water/liquid in the dock connector. Upon scrutiny of all the arguments and materials on record and hearing both the parties, the menber of forum, Cynthia Colaco observed that it was the duty of the manufacturer to satisfy the forum what was the reason for the iPhone to not work when it was handed over to the authorized dealers. The forum held that "minimum that is expected from a manufacturer who has gained the confidence and reputation of the public is to try and explain to the complainant the reason for the said iPhone becoming non-operational within a short span and within the period of the warranty which is usually a period of twelve months from the date of purchase." Upon the above observation Apple through its customer care was directed to replace the said iPhone 4 with a new iPhone of the same nature and features, and in the event they fail to deliver the same, the opposite party no.1 is directed to refund the sum of Rs.26,500 along with interest of 9 per cent p.a. payable from July 27 2013 up to the date of the actual payment of the same. Besides the replacement Lopes was held entitled to a cost of proceedings of Rs 5000 and compensation of Rs 25,000. takes byte
