Delhi

North East

CC/197/2017

Sh. Vishal Chaudhary - Complainant(s)

Versus

Future World Retail Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. - Opp.Party(s)

02 Apr 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No.197/17

 

In the matter of:

 

	Sh. Vishal Chaudhary, S/o Sh. Shiv Kumar Chaudhary, R/o A-1/66/75, Gali No. 1, East Gokal Pur, Delhi 110094	Complainant
	Versus
1.           2.           3.	Future World Retail Pvt. Ltd., G-54, Radial Road No. 2, Opp. Palika Parking, Connaught Place, New Delhi 110001   Apple India Private Ltd., 19th Floor, Concorde Tower C, UB City, No. 24, Vittal Mallya Road, Banglore 560001 Through Regional India   B2X Service Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., Shop No. F-23 & 24, First Floor, Pacific Mall, Dr. Burman Road, Sahibabad, Ghaziabad- 201010 Through its Proprietor	Opposite Parties

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:         JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                         DATE OF ORDER  :

14.06.2017 25.01.2024 02.04.2024

 

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

 

ORDER

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that on 24.04.2014, the Complainant had purchased an Apple phone 4S from the International Value Retail Pvt. Ltd. for a sum of Rs. 25,500/-. The said phone was manufactured by Opposite Party No. 3 and Opposite Party No. 3 is service centre. It is his case that he got the extended warranty of the said phone after paying an amount of Rs. 3,900/- extra to the Opposite Party No. 3. The warranty was from 24.04.2015 to 23.04.2016. Complainant stated that since the purchase of the mobile handset, the Complainant realized that the battery of the phone dissipated quite frequently and the phone started hanging abruptly. Complainant stated that it also demonstrated malfunctioning in its software but due to his busy schedule and paucity of time, the Complainant could not approach the service centre of the apple with the complaint. Complainant approached Opposite Party No. 1 vide service report no. 042dated 16.04.2016 for resolution of the problem in thesaid phone. Opposite Party No. 1 kept the said phone and asked the Complainant to wait for 1 hour. It is stated by them that phone would be checked by the engineer which took around 40-45 minutes for internal checking to find defects. Complainant stated that after a minute after depositing the phone, the executive of service centre came and told that the phone was damaged due to liquid in it hence it was not covered under the terms and conditions of the warranty. Complainant stated that service centre without  thorough checking of the phone they declared that the said phone was damaged due to liquid in it and returned the phone to the Complainant. Complainant stated that it is clear from the act and attitude of the executive that the mobile was not checked properly or inspected for finding the due fault in it and the fault told him was just to avoid the responsibility and impose the liability on the Complainant. On 08.09.2016, Complainant sent a legal notice to the Opposite Parties but they ignored the same. Hence, this shows the deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Parties. Complainant has prayed for an amount of Rs. 25,500/- i.e. the cost of the mobile phone along with interest @24 %. Complainant also prayed for an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of mental harassment, Rs. 35,000/- on account of litigation expenses and               Rs. 11,000/- towards the cost of the legal notices.
2. Opposite Party No. 1 and Opposite Party No. 2 contested the case and filed written statement. Opposite Party No. 1 and Opposite Party No. 2 were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 01.12.2017 and 25.05.2022 respectively due to continue non-appearance.

 

Case of the Opposite Party No. 3

1. The Opposite Party No. 3 contested the case and filed its written statement. It is stated that the Complainant had purchased the Apple Protection Plan for the handset mentioned in the complaint and same was provided by the Opposite Party No. 3 and after that services would be covered under terms and condition of Opposite Party No. 2 as manufacturing is providing the Apple Protection Plan. It is further stated that Complainant had never served the legal notice to the Opposite Party No. 3 as per legal notice dated 08.09.2016. It is further stated that no proof of service is there that notice was also served to the Opposite Party No. 3 by the Complainant. It is further stated that the prayer of the Complainant is defective and not tenable in the eyes of law and the Complainant is not entitled for any of the relief prayed in the prayer clause of the Complainant. It is prayed that the complaint may be dismissed.  

Rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party No. 3

2. The Complainant did not file the rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party No. 3.

Evidence of the Complainan

3. The Complainant in support of his complaint filed his evidence by way of affidavit wherein he has supported the averments made in the complaint.

 

 

Evidence of the Opposite Party No. 3

4. Despite grant of opportunities, Opposite Party No. 3 did not file the evidence by way of affidavit. Hence, the right to file the evidence on behalf of the Opposite Party No. 3 was closed vide order dated 24.03.2023.

Arguments & Conclusion

3. We have heard the Ld. Counsels for Complainant. We have also perused the file and the written arguments filed by the Complainant. The case of the Complainant is that he purchased a mobile phone on 24.04.2014 manufactured by Opposite Party No. 2. Opposite Party No. 1 is service centre of Opposite Party No. 2 and Opposite Party No. 3 provided him the extended warranty of the phone from 24.04.2015 to 23.04.2016 on payment of required fee. It is further submitted by the Complainant that since the purchase of the mobile phone, there was certain issue in the phone regarding the battery of the phone  and hanging abruptly. There was also some problem in its software. It is further submitted by the Complainant that he has approached Opposite Party No. 1 on 16.04.2016 for resolution of the problem faced by him with the phone. After examining the phone Opposite Party No. 2 refused to rectify the problem of the phone on the ground that phone is damaged due to liquid in it, hence, it is not covered under the terms and conditions of the warranty which is also mentioned in the service report given by the Complainant. Complainant alleged that without thorough inspection of the phone, Opposite Party had declared that damage in phone occurred due to liquid in it which could not be found without any thorough checking or inspection. Hence, there is deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Party.
4. It is clear from the above that the said phone was purchased on 24.04.2014 and Complainant approached first time to the Opposite Party No. 1 for the repair of the phone on 23.04.2016 which is after two years of the purchase of the said phone. In his written arguments he also submitted that phone is still in working condition but problems mentioned in the job card is subsist.  Hence, there is no manufacturing defect in the phone. Further, Complainant failed to prove that the phone was not damaged due to liquid in it. Complainant failed to produce any document/evidence in this regard. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of The Branch Manager, Indigo Airlines, Kolkata and Another v. Kalpana Rani Debbarma and Others (2020) 9 SCC 424) held that the initial onus or burden to justify, verify and authenticate the fact that there is a deficiency of service committed by a party is on the Complainant.
5. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the Complainant has failed to prove his case. Hence, the complaint is dismissed.
6. Order announced on 02.04.2024.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost

File be consigned to Record Room.

(Anil Kumar Bamba)		(Surinder Kumar Sharma)
(Member)		(President)