Delivery Of Second Hand Iphone Instead Of New, Shimla District Commission Holds Amazon And Listed Reseller Liable For Unfair Trade Practices

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla (Himachal Pradesh) bench comprising Dr. Baldev Singh (President), Ms Yogita Dutta (Member) and Mr Jagdev Singh Raitka (Member) held Amazon and M/s Arhum IT, a listed mobile phone reseller liable for unfair trade practices for delivering a differently coloured iPhone and charging for it at par with a new iPhone, even when it was a refurbished and second-hand iPhone. Brief Facts: Shri Narinder Kumar (“Complainant”) placed an order for an Apple iPhone 5s (Silver, 16 GB) from Amazon India (“Amazon”), manufactured by Apple India Private Limited (“Apple”). The Complainant received a confirmation, stating that the phone would be delivered within 12 days from the order date and would be sold by M/s Arhum IT (“Reseller”). The Complainant paid a sum of Rs.35,599/- to Amazon for the phone. In less than a year, the Complainant started facing issues with the phone. The screen of the phone started blacking out frequently. The Complainant notified Apple of the defect during the warranty period but received a mail stating that the iPhone was purchased outside India one year before the Complainant purchased it from Amazon. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh (“District Commission”). Apple asserted that consumers purchasing illegal products are not eligible for relief under the Consumer Protection Act, of 1986. They argued that the Apple Warranty excludes products not purchased in the country where the service is offered. Apple claimed that it only sells legally imported iPhones, not second-hand or refurbished ones. Amazon opposed the complaint, stating it provides a platform for third-party sellers, and that the Complainant's grievances are with the reseller, and not with it. Amazon asserted that its role was limited to listing products, and it had no control over the sale transaction or manufacturing defects. No one appeared on behalf of the reseller and it was proceeded against ex-parte. Observations by the Commission: The District Commission noted that the Complainant made a purchase for a silver iPhone from Amazon but instead received a grey-coloured iPhone. It noted along with deviation from the specified colour, the Complainant faced subsequent issues with the phone's functionality within the warranty period. Further, it noted that Amazon acknowledged that the Complainant indeed ordered a silver-coloured iPhone, confirming the Complainant's claim that a grey-coloured iPhone was supplied instead. Further, Apple, in its written submission, openly admitted that the phone was not new and was purchased outside India. Therefore, the District Commission held that there was enough evidence to suggest that Amazon and the reseller resold the iPhone to the Complainant, even though the Complainant had placed an order and paid for a brand-new iPhone. Further, the District Commission noted that the acknowledgement by Apple aligns directly with the Complainant's contention that he was charged for a new iPhone but received a second-hand or refurbished device. The District Commission held that this act of selling a second-hand or refurbished iPhone instead of a brand-new one constituted both a deficiency in service and an unfair trade practice. Therefore, the District Commission held Amazon and the reseller liable for violation of fair business practices and consumer rights. It directed Amazon and the reseller should bear the responsibility for indemnifying the Complainant for the loss he incurred due to the sale of a second-hand phone instead of the promised new one. It directed them to refund jointly and severally a sum of Rs. 35,699/- to the Complainant along with interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of filing of the complaint. Further, they were directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- to the Complainant as compensation for mental harassment and agony and a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as costs of litigation. Case Title: Narinder Kumar vs Apple India Private Ltd and another. Case No.: Complaint No.: 141/2016 Advocate for the Complainant: Swaran Sharma and Peeyush Verma Advocate for the Respondent: Peeyush Verma Click Here To Read/Download The Order

Delivery Of Second Hand Iphone Instead Of New, Shimla District Commission Holds Amazon And Listed Reseller Liable For Unfair Trade Practices

Smita Singh

Tags