Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 415
Instituted on : 28.09.2020
Decided on : 31.01.2024
Ayush age 28 years son of Mukesh Bansal, resident of Ganga Ram Sanitary, Kath Mandi, Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- SikkaTeleconnect, Shop no.1126, near Peer Baba, Chhotu Ram Chowk. Rohtak through its Proprietor/Authorized person.
- Apple India Private Ltd. no.24, 19th Floor, Concorde Tower, C, UB City, VittalMaliya Road, Banglore,-560001, through its Manager/AR/Principal officer.
…….Respondents/Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR.VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER
Present: Sh.Sunil Kumar, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.KunalJuneja, Advocate for the opposite party No.2.
Opposite party No.1 exparte.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case as per complainant are that he had purchased a mobile phone make Apple I Phone 6S 32 GB from the opposite party No.1 on dated 28.01.2020 vide invoice no.STC/19-03484 for a sum of Rs.22000/-. It is further submitted that after the purchase of said mobile phone, it become defective under the warranty period and was not functioning properly as it has problem of ‘volume lock and ringer button not working properly’. Complainant complained the same to the opposite party no.1 and requested to replace the said mobile phone or to return the amount paid by the complainant. Respondent no.1 asked the complainant to visit at Digicare i.e. service centre of opposite party no.1 and then complainant visited the service centre and handed over the said mobile to the official of said service centre. They checked the mobile and kept the same vide job sheet dated 22.07.2020 and asked the complainant to collect the mobile phone later on. Thereafter they asked that the mobile was not repairable and returned back the same after 20 days. Complainant contacted the opposite party no.2 on toll free number 0008001009009 but the same could not be connected. The act and conduct of the respondentsof not replacing the said defective mobile phone is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to replace the aforesaidmobile phone with new one or to return the amount of Rs.22000/- alongwith interest @ 18% from the date of purchase of mobile phone till realisation and also to pay Rs.50000/- as compensation and Rs.22000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notices were issued to the respondent/opposite parties. Notice sent to opposite party No.1 received back duly served through Process-Server of this Commission. But none appeared on behalf of opposite party no.1 and as such opposite party No.1 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 22.12.2020 of this Commission. Opposite party No.2 in its reply has submitted that it is true to the extent that the complainant approached the AASP on dated 22.07.2020 and he had some issues in the said device and the AASP took it for inspection. The complainant received his mobile back on the same date i.e. 22.07.2020 and acknowledged it in the job sheet. This proves that the complainant is clearly lying by making false claims that his mobile was not handed back for a period of 20 days. The complainant confirmed that he had tampered the said device and thus it was out of warranty. He acknowledged the same by attesting his signature on the job sheet while receiving back the device on 22.07.2020. The AASP refused to repair/service the said phone after checking it, as it was found to be tampered. Hence, the said iphone was rendered out of warranty due to damage and could not be serviced/replaced under warranty. The complainant has not produced any sort of evidence to show that the iphone was defective. He has deliberately hidden the fact that it was damaged due to his own actions and was established after the AASP found the said phone to be damaged. All the other contents of the complainant were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party No.2 prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
3. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C3and closed his evidence on dated 01.04.2022. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the opposite party No.2 in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R4 and closed his evidence on 07.10.2022.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. We have perused the documents placed on record by both the parties. In the present case complainant had purchased the phone on 28.01.2020 which is proved from the bill Ex.C1. Only one job sheet dated 22.07.2020 Ex.C2 has been placed on record by the complainant. It has been further submitted by the complainant that he intimated regarding the defects in the mobile phone on the toll free number 0008001009009 of the opposite party Number which could not be connected. But no such date and time has been mentioned in the complaint by the complainant himself. We have minutely perused the document Ex.C2 and the problem reported by the customer is as under:- Condition of the equipment-“Heavy dents and scratches around chrome and scratches on display”. Unit was returned by the technical person to the complainant after giving a remarks-‘tampered’. The complainant failed to place on record any authentic evidence to prove the fact that the mobile was not working from the beginning. So the complainant has failed to prove that the mobile in question was defective from the very beginning. He contacted the opposite parties after 6 months of its purchase but the same could not be repaired by the opposite party due to the fact that the mobile was tampered and was out of warranty.
6. In view of the fact and circumstances of the case it is observed that there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and as such present complaint stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
7. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
31.01.2024.
.....................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
TriptiPannu, Member.
..........................................
Vijender Singh, Member.
