Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/409/2016

Ravi Kant - Complainant(s)

Versus

Apple Store (Mobile Company) - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

03 Oct 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	409/2016
Date of Institution	:	10.06.2016
Date of Decision	:	03.10.2016

 

                                                

                                                         

Ravi Kant s/o Sh.Hem Raj r/o H.No.990, Village Kishangarh, UT, Chandigarh.

                                      ...  Complainant.

Versus

1.      Apple Store (Mobile Company), SCO No.371-372, First Floor, Sector 35-B,Chandigarh (Manufacturer).

 

2.      Croma Infiniti Retail Ltd., Trading SCO 57, Sector 26, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh (Distributor).

…. Opposite Parties.

 

BEFORE:   SHRI RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

Argued by: Complainant in person.

                   OPs exparte.

 

PER RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

1.           In brief, the case of the complainant is that he purchased a mobile phone make Apple from OP No.1 vide invoice dated 18.05.2016 for Rs.23,500/-. It has been alleged that on 28.05.2016, the mobile phone became defective and, therefore, he approached OP No.2 who asked him to leave the mobile phone for four hours and they would send it to the Service Center.  However, after four hours, OP No.2 handed over to him a quotation in the sum of Rs.21,000/- towards the repair of the mobile phone, in question and on the quotation, it was mentioned as “physical damage/screen damage paid service exchange price not repairable”. It has further been alleged that he was harassed by the OPs by giving the defective mobile phone and wrong quotation/estimate with regard to the repairs thereof.  Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
2.           Despite due service through registered post, Opposite Party  No.1 failed to put in appearance and as a result thereof it was ordered to be proceeded against exparte vide order dated 21.07.2016
3.           Initially, Sh.Varun Puri, Authorized Agent on behalf of OP No.2 put in appearance on 21.07.2016 and the case was adjourned for filing reply and evidence on behalf of OP No.2 for 18.08.2016.  On the date fixed i.e. 18.08.2016, none appeared on its behalf and as such it was ordered to be proceeded against exparte.
4.           We have heard the complainant and have gone through the documents on record.
5.           After going through the documentary evidence on record, we are of the considered view that the complaint is liable to be dismissed for the reasons recorded hereinafter.  It is evident from  the quotation dated 30.05.2016 issued by M/s Paramatrix Info Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Chandigarh that the mobile phone having the IME No.352084077047007 was physically damaged and as such it was right in raising the estimate for Rs.21,000/- towards its repair. Since the mobile in question was physically damaged and, therefore, the warranty terms became void ab initio and no direction can be given to the OPs to repair the mobile phone, in question, free of costs.   The complainant has not been able to place on record any warranty terms to show that the OPs are yet liable to repair the mobile phone in question free of costs in case of any physical damage to it.
6.           It is also apposite to mention here that the IMEI number as mentioned in the quotation as well in the sale invoice of the mobile phone in question is the same and as such the plea of the complainant that he was issued wrong quotation appears to be hollow and the same is rejected accordingly.   Moreover, in case, the screen of the mobile phone was broken by OP No.2 or the Service Center as alleged then the complainant would not have accepted it in a damaged condition. Therefore, we have no hesitation in our mind to conclude that the complainant has concocted a false and frivolous story just to get relief from this Forum by suppressing the material facts.   In this view of the matter, the complainant has miserably failed to make any case of deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.
7.           Consequently, finding the complaint to be devoid of any merit and substance, the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.
8.           Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

03.10.2016

Sd/-

(RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER