Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/436/2018

Devinder Singh Soundh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Unicorn Infosolutions Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Pankaj Chandgothia

25 Sep 2020

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/436/2018
Date of Institution	:	04/09/2018
Date of Decision	:	25/09/2020

 

Devinder Singh Soundh s/o Lt. Sh. Jai Singh, House No.709, top floor, Sector 43-A, Chandigarh

Present Address : House No.139-B, First Floor, Sunny Enclave, Sector 125, Kharar, Distt. Mohali.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. M/s Unicorn Infosolutions Pvt. Ltd., SCO 315-316, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh through its Manager.
2. M/s Unicorn Infosolutions Pvt. Ltd., #301, Kotia Nirman, New Link Road, Andheri West, Mumbai-400053 through its M.D.
3. M/s Apple India Private Limited, 19 Floor, Concorde Tower C, UB City No.24, Vittal Mallya Road, Bangalore-560001, Karnataka through its MD.

… Opposite Parties

CORAM :	SHRI RATTAN SINGH THAKUR	PRESIDENT
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                            

ARGUED BY	:	None for complainant
	:	None for OPs 1 & 2
	:	Sh. Devinder Kumar, Counsel for OP-3

 

Per Rattan Singh Thakur, President

1.      The summarized allegations are, vide invoice dated 23.5.2017, complainant had purchased an iphone7 (32 GB gold) from OP-1 on payment of Rs.54,000/- which carried warranty of one year from the date of purchase. Rs.4,000/- and Rs.999/- were also added in the said invoice amount though it was over and above MRP.  Further case is, in the second week of May 2018, complainant noticed a bent on the bottom corner of the mobile and it seemed like pressure bent and resultant crack.  On being taken to the OPs for repair free of cost during the warranty period, the same was not acceded to on the pretext there was a physical damage in the mobile which was not covered under the warranty.  Thereafter, correspondence was made but to no avail. The complainant claimed it tantamounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence, he has filed the present consumer complaint for directing the OPs to either give brand new replacement of the mobile in question with latest model or refund the amount of Rs.54,000/- alongwith interest; refund Rs.4,001/- wrongly charged; pay compensation Rs.10,000/- and Rs.11,000/- each as punitive damages and litigation expenses respectively. 
2.     OPs 1 & 2 contested the consumer complaint, filed their joint written reply and, inter alia, claimed consumer complaint being false and vexatious. Their case is, material facts were concealed by the complainant and even during this period on 5.9.2017, complainant had broken the screen of the said mobile phone which was not part of the warranty. Even then it was replaced free of cost under the Unicorn royalty card privilege program as free  paid service upto Rs.25,000/- was available once in limited warranty program period provided by OPs 1 & 2. Further case is, said service was provided free of cost though chargeable service was Rs.16,050/-. Averred, again the said phone was brought with the report, it had dents and, therefore, sought to be replaced. Since it was complainant induced damage, same was not covered under the warranty. It is the case, complainant is exploiting the OPs. On these lines, the cause is sought to be defended.
3.     OP-3 filed its separate written reply claiming manufacturer has unnecessarily been joined and other allegations made by the complainant were also controverted on the same footing as OPs 1 & 2 had asserted.
4.     The complainant, despite grant of sufficient opportunities, did not file rejoinder to controvert the contentions of the OPs, therefore, vide order dated 27.6.2019 opportunity to file rejoinder was closed.
5.     Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
6.     We have heard the learned counsel for OP-3 and gone through the record of the case, including the written arguments of complainant. After scanning of record, our findings are as under:-
7.     Per pleadings of the parties, it appears the said mobile was manufactured by OP-3 and sold through OPs 1 & 2 and insurance cover was provided by OPs 1 & 2. It is pertinent to take note of here, complainant had concealed material facts as per averments made in the consumer complaint. It is the case of the OPs, during this period on 5.9.2017, screen of the mobile phone was found broken and free service was provided which would have actually cost Rs.16,050/- to the complainant.  This facility was availed by the complainant as per insurance made and the amount for which was separately charged by OPs 1 & 2.  When the one year warranty was to expire on 23.5.2018 and during its continuation, just two days before i.e. on 21.5.2018 the complainant again took his mobile phone to OPs 1 & 2, as is made out from Annexure C-3, and on checking they found the device was physically damaged and not eligible for warranty service and needs to be replaced under paid service. The device was returned to the customer and estimate of repair was given. The chargeable service was not got done by the complainant. A particular date was chosen i.e. two days before one year warranty was to expire which seems un-natural. With the user of the mobile phone the said dent was not likely to occur in it or it would be induced by the complainant.
8.     We have already referred, the claim on insurance cover on breakage of screen was already got repaired free of cost which otherwise would have cost the complainant more than Rs.16,000/- and this fact was concealed by him.  This speaks of not aboveboard bonafide conduct of the complainant and just one or two days before expiry of the period of warranty saying the dents in the mobile phone in question had appeared with its user, which upon examination was found to be physically damaged and thus not covered under the warranty.
9.     The perusal of the record further shows, OPs had made allegation of complainant misusing and exploiting his position as a consumer to the detriment of the OPs and there was concealment of material facts with regard to the free replacement of the screen of the mobile phone done and the impression was given in the consumer complaint as if it was his first case for replacement of the parts within one year and prayer was also made to get its price refunded or replace the mobile on account of complainant’s own induced physical damage to the mobile.
10.     To this averment, which was supported by way of affidavit of the OPs i.e. the vendor, insurer and the manufacturer, the complainant has filed no rejoinder rebutting the assertions made in their written reply. In the written arguments furnished by the complainant, now a claim is being made since the insurance cover was provided of physical damage to the extent of Rs.25,000/- while Rs.16,050/- was given in the first repair, therefore, repair for an amount of Rs.8,950/- was still pending under the insurance cover, as such, the claim was wrongly denied. 
11.     No prayer was made by the complainant in the consumer complaint for the insurance provided of the mobile; rather prayer was made for refund of Rs.54,000/- on account of there being manufacturing defect. To us, the claim preferred by the complainant does not appear to be a legitimate, just and moral.
12.     In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the present consumer complaint and the same is accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
13.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-
25/09/2020	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Rattan Singh Thakur]
hg	Member	President