1. This is an order for petition filed by Sushant Kumar Mishra S/o. K.c. Mishra, main road Dahughtu, Khunti against apple India Pvt. Ltd. Bangalore and Reliance Digital Ranchi Jharkhand  with –
2. . Relief sought by the Complainant  is:-

        Mobile cost Rs. -                 22791 

         Cost of case Rs -                   10000

        Harassment Cost Rs.  -       40000

3. The complaint case in short is that on 17/08/2016 the complainant purchased an apple I phone from apple India private limited, from its branch Reliance Digital Ranchi. For apple I phone he has paid Rs. 22791/-   (twenty two thousand seven hundred ninety one rupees) in cash. After sometime on 23/07/2017 a black mark appeared on the screen and the screen was not working properly. Hence the complainant detected the defect .Thereafter the complainant requested the company to solve the problem. The company did not take any interest. The company asked the complainant to pay Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) for repairing. The complainant states that the I phone was under warranty period at that time. The demand of the company to pay Rs.10, 000/- (Ten Thousand) for repairing of phone is illegal .The warranty period begins right from dated 17/08/2016 to onwards 16/08/2017. The complainant say’s that the company is not covering the warranty period.

4. For support of his complaint petition the complainant has submitted following   documents.

(1) Email to the company by the complainant dated 27/07/2017

 (2) Copy of collection of product dated 24/07/2017.

 (3) Cash memo of reliance retail limited reliance digital dated 17/08/2016.  

 (4) Adhar card of complainant.

5. After admission of this case notices were issued to the opposite parties thereafter opposite parties appeared in this case and field their written statements. The opposite parties made contentions, that complainant case is not maintainable. The I phone 5s sold in India by opposite party number 1(OP1) through their authorized dealers resellers. The authorized dealers and resellers are known for their cutting-edge technology and atmost customer satisfaction .I phone 5s is one of the largest selling devices in the world and India. The said I phone 5s undergoes strict quality tests to ensure that the product maintain high standards to ensure that they do not fail to meet industry standards, opposite party states that complainant has been devised to mislead this Hon’ble Commission. Opposite parties further submitted that it is a common market principle and also an established position of law that consumer who willfully destroy, damage or negligently handle a product are not eligible to claim any relief under the consumer protection act 1986. To be specific when consumer cause damage to products by external factors which are not associated with the manufacturing and inherent condition of the product such act are in complete disregards to and in breach  of the  warranty policies of manufacturers (In the instant case in the apple warranty) can not claim relief under the consumer protection act 1986.

  The opposite parties says that in this case FI Info Solution found that the complainant’s i phone 5s bearing serial no. DX3RPO5ZFRC4 was damaged. Due to this reason FI Info solution’s response and the replacement was rejected. Due to the said damage it is beyond the warranty and not a fault. That the complainant is also guilty and has approached this Hon’ble commission with unclean hands .There was no defect detected or certified by any expert on the complainant’s. I phone. Upon inspection done by the F1 INFO SOLUTION, it was confirmed that the i phone 5s was damaged.  Warranty service was rejected due to damage. Opposite party submitted that in this case M/S TATA MOTOR LTD. Verses Mrs. Surjit kaur & others the court held that adherence to the instruction contained in the warranty manual is pre-requisite for admission of case of manufacturing defect. And in another case C.N. Anantharam Vs Fial- India Ltd and others the court held that if the consumer failed to prove any manufacturing defect in the product- hence he is not liable to claim compensation for the same.

 6. Document submitted by the opposite party

       1 Annexure –1- One year warranty document

       2. Reliance Retail Limited (Reliance Digital) cash memo receipt.

       3. Services delivery challan dated 24/07/2017.

       4. Job sheet dated 24/07/2017- Annexure-02.

       5. I phone’s photo in which model IMEI number is mentioned

Findings

Complainant has filed this case on 11/08/17 and on the same date the case was admitted and notices were issued to opposite party for appearance. In this case on 08/09/17, opposite party were appeared and opposite party No.1 filed their written statement on the same date and opposite party No.2 filed their written statement on 30/11/2017. There after case was fixed for hearing. From perusal of record it appears that from 27/03/20 till today the complainant is absent from the forum. On 21/01/22 and 08/03/22. Complainant virtually appeared in this case. Several directions were given to the complainant to file his evidence on affidavit but complainant neither appeared before the forum nor filed any evidence in this case. From perusal if record it appears that complainant has lost his interest in this case and he has not proved his allegation before the forum. Hence we come to the conclusion that this case is dismissed without cost.