District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.

Consumer Complaint  No. 47/2022.

 Date of Institution:21.01.2022.

Date of Order:06.03.2023.

Deepak Rajpal aged about 28 years son of Shri Rajpal Singh, resident of House No.223, Sector-31, Faridabad.

                                                                   …….Complainant……..

                                                Versus

Buzzmeeh Online Care for Mobile and Tablets Service Center, B-102, Sector-65, Noida, Uttar Pradesh 201301 through its Proprietor. Mobile No. 8010969696, 9999767952.

                                                                              …Opposite party.

Complaint under section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Now  amended  Section 34 of Consumer protection Act 2019.

BEFORE:            Amit Arora……………..President

Mukesh Sharma…………Member.

Indira Bhadana………….Member.

PRESENT:                   Sh.   Rajpal Singh,  counsel for the complainant.

                             Opposite party ex-parte vide order dated 15.02.2023.

ORDER:  

                   The facts in brief of the complaint are that  the complainant purchased Apple iphone XS 256GB bearing invoice dated 19.03.2019 for

Rs.1,08,000/-.  The above noted iphone’s display was not functioning in a smooth way thus the applicant made a complaint to the opposite party for inspecting the same online. On 4.9.2021, a technician of opposite party came to the house of the complainant i.e House No.223, Sector-31, Faridabad.  The technician of the opposite party told the complainant for the replacement of display after inspecting the same and cost of the display was told to be Rs.6,000/- with a six month warrantee of the display.  The complainant treated the opposite party and got replaced the display and paid Rs.6,000/- to him.  When the display was replaced the complainant also asked about non functioning of true tone and the depth feature which were not functioning at the time of replacement of the display to which the technician of the opposite party assured to update the same within two or three days by a machine apparatus and assured that the feature would be continued.  The complainant requested many times to the opposite party to update the display but no response was given for the same.  After two months of the replacement of the display there was some blue colour visible on the display and slowly  the colour on the screen visible on the display and slowly the colour on the screen started to become dark day by day.  The complainant made complaint on telephone and asked the opposite  party about the non functioning of the features of the iphone and colour changing then he was told by the opposite party to sent a technician with a machine which would update the replaced display and assured that mobile phone will function.  The complainant explained the condition of the set but the opposite party failed to cooperate with the complainant.  When no response was givne by the opposite party and no mechanic or engineer came to check the mobile set then the complainant made a complaint of faulty display replacement of iphone online dated 30.11.2021 and made several calls but the opposite party did not

response neither they sent any technician.  Inspite of this the complainant was assured with a six month warrantee.The aforesaid act of opposite party amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint.  The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite party to:

a)                replace the display of mobile phone or to refund the entire amount of Rs.6,000/-.

 b)                pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .

c)                 pay Rs. 21,000 /-as litigation expenses

2.                Opposite party put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite party refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that  the complainant has not disclosed before this Hon’ble Forum that the fact that it was complainant who was at fault here as after the screen of the complainant was replaced by the opposite party’s technicians, the phone of the complainant suffered a physical damage due to his own fault as a result of which the screen of the complainant’s phone broke again.  The complainant was well aware about the fact that a physical damage was not covered by the warranty provided by the opposite party herein as the same was clearly mentioned on the website of the opposite party as well.  It was clearly stated on the invoice as well that physical damage should not be covered within the warranty being provided by the opposite party.  The complainant himself failed to abide by the conditions under which the warranty was to be provided by the opposite party company herein.  As per the warranty conditions of the opposite party, which were clearly published on the website of the opposite party, it was categorically stated that as soon as an issues

arises with respect to the replaced part, the consumer was bound to share a video of the phone to the whatsapp number of the opposite party so that the technician of the opposite party can do a basic assessment of the issue with the phone.  However, the complainant herein told the opposite party herein that the screen of the phone of the complainant’s phone first became blue and then it went completely blank.  It was only when the screen completely went blank, the complainant herein sent a photo and not the video, of the phone to the whatsapp number of the opposite party.  Moreover, the complainant herein himself over text messages sent over whatspp and even in the present complaint had himself admitted that the screen of the complainant’s phone became blue and thereafter it went blank completely.  When the complainant himself told the technician of the opposite party herein that the screen of the complaint’s phone became blue, the technician of the opposite party duly informed the complainant herein that the screen becoming blue means that the screen had suffered broken damage and thus the same should not be covered by the warranty period.  Opposite party denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.                Case called several times since morning but none appeared on behalf of opposite party.  Hence, opposite party was hereby proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 15.2.2023.

4.                The complainant led evidence in support of his respective version.

5.                We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the record on the file.

6.                In this case the complaint was filed by the complainant against

opposite party– Buzzmeeh Online. with the prayer to: a)          replace the display of mobile phone or to refund the entire amount of Rs.6,000/-.  b)   pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment . c)     pay Rs. 21,000 /-as litigation expenses

                   To establish his case the complainant  has led in his evidence,  Ex.CW1/A – affidavit of Shri Deepak Rajpal, Ex.C-1 – invoice, ExC-2 – email dated 04.09.2021,, Ex..C-3 – email dated 30.11.2021, Ex.C-4  -whatsapp messages.

7.                There is nothing on record to disbelieve and discredit the aforesaid ex-parte evidence of the complainant. Since opposite party has not come present to contest the claim of the complainant, therefore, the allegations made in complaint by the complainant go unrebutted.

 8.               In this complaint, the complainant who was at fault here as after the screen of the complainant was replaced by the opposite party’s technicians, the phone of the complainant suffered a physical damage due to his own fault as a result of which the screen of the complainant’s phone broke again.  The complainant was well aware about the fact that a physical damage was not covered by the warranty provided by the opposite party herein as the same was clearly mentioned on the website of the opposite party as well.  It is also mentioned in invoice vide E.C2 that physical damage will not be covered within the warranty . As per Ex.C-4, the complainant himself over text messages sent over whatsapp and even in the present complaint has himself admitted that the screen of the complainant’s phone became blue and thereafter  went blank completely.    When the complainant himself told the technician of the opposite party that the screen of the complainant’s phone became blue, the technician of opposite party duly informed the complainant that the screen becoming blue means that the screen has

suffered broken damage  and thus the same shall not be covered by the warranty period.

9.                Keeping in view of the above submissions, the Commission is of the opinion that  no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party has been proved. Resultantly,  the complaint is dismissed. Copy of this order be given to the parties  concerned free of costs and file be consigned to record room.

Announced on:  06.03.2023                                         (Amit Arora)

                                                                                             President

                     District Consumer Disputes

           Redressal  Commission, Faridabad.

                                                            (Mukesh Sharma)

                Member

          District Consumer Disputes

                                                                               Redressal Commission, Faridabad.

                                                           (Indira Bhadana)

                Member

          District Consumer Disputes

                                                                               Redressal Commission, Faridabad.