DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016

Case No.225/21

Dhanajay Jha

203, Apna Apartment

Savitri Nagar, Delhi-110017.                                      .…Complainant

                                                VERSUS

Gadgetwood E-Services Pvt. Ltd.

A-47, Sector-58, NOIDA

Delhi-NCR)

Uttar Pradesh-201301.                                               ….Opposite Party

Coram:

Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President

Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member

Sh. U.K. Tyagi, Member

ORDER

Date of Institution:12.08.2021

Date of Order       :14.12.2023

Member: Shri U.K.Tyagi

Complainant has requested to pass an award directing M/s Gadgetwood e-service Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as OP) (i) to allow the compensation of I-phone SE (Rs.39,000/- (ii) to pay the compensation of Rs.2,84,000/- towards mental agony and harassment and other costs etc.

Brief facts of the case are as under:_

The complainant approached OP on 14.07.2020 to replace the his I-phone – SE battery.  When the complainant contacted OP’s person i.e. Shri Nishant Sharma on mb, it was told that the OP’s company shall charge Rs.1,000/- for the new battery.  The same was done at the complainant’s residence.  Copies of the bank transaction and invoice are annexed at Annexure C-1.  the OP’s engineer damaged the touch screen of mobile of the complainant during the process of cleaning.  The same replaced by OP on 15.07.2020.  Copy of the screen shots of call logs dated 15.07.2020 are annexed at Annexure C-2.  On 14.07.2020, the OP’s engineer forgot to fix (paste) the battery, therefore he visited again to do the same.  During the fixing/pasting of the battery on 28.07.2020, the said mobile phone got shut down.

The complainant contacted Shri Nishant Sharma reply of OP on whatsapp of his mobile 7289928153.  In turn, he assured to fix up problem within 2/3 days.  Copy of screen shot are attached as Annexure C-3.  On 30.07.2020, the OP’s staff handed over the said phone stating that the all issues had been resolved.  But the complainant noted two problems:- (a) Incoming voice call was not coming (b) Power Switches were not working properly.  He informed Shri Nishant Sharma via WhatsApp as well as e-mail on 30.07.2020 and e-mail to Jayant Jha CEO of the Company copies of same are enclosed at Annexed C-4.  On 31.07.2020, the staff of OP picked up the phone and same day, it was delivered to complainant assuring him that issue had been resolved.  On 04.08.2020, the complainant noticed that touch Id of said phone was not working and battery back up was also poor.  Complainant informed CEO & Nishant Sharma on Whatsapp as well as e-mails.  Copies of screenshots of WhatsApp and e-mail are enclosed as Annexure C-5.  Since the OP could not fix the problem, hence, it amounts to deficiency in service.  A legal notice dated 07.08.2020 to this effect was got served on OP.

OP on the other hand, filed its reply interalia raising preliminary objections.  It was maintained by OP that the complainant had not come before the Commission with clean hands and deliberately concealed the material facts.  It was stated that the complainant approached the OP for replacement of battery of his mobile only and the engineer replaced the same.  No chemical is required for replacement of battery hence no deficiency on the part of OP.  The OP vehemently denied the damage caused in the mobile by his service engineer.  There is no link of touch screen and replacement of battery.  It was also denied that the engineer forgot to paste the battery.  The battery was installed on the same day i.e. 14.07.2020. After installation, the complainant checked and on being satisfied himself, he transferred the money to the company.  The problem so narrated could not be created on replacement of battery.  The problems were created by complainant himself.  The OP maintained that the problem so cropped up was not on account of replacement of battery.  There was no linkage in battery replacement and the problems of touch screen, incoming calls etc.

          The complainant filed evidence in affidavit. Written statement is on record so is rejoinder.  Arguments were addressed by the complainant himself.  The OP failed to file evidence despite many opportunities.  OP was declared exparte vide order dated 27.07.2023.

          This Commission has gone into the entire material placed on record.  Due consideration was given.  The main grievance of the complainant was that during the process of replacement of the battery, engineer of the OP, created many new problems in his mobile I-phone SE.  It was also noted from the record that the battery of the said mobile was replaced on 14.07.2020.  On being satisfied with replacement, the complainant transferred the amount for the battery’s cost.  The complainant further alleged that the touch screen of the said mobile was damaged by engineer due to cleaning liquid.  He also alleged that same was replaced on 15.07.2020.  The call logs of the 15.07.2020 were annexed but this Commission could not ascertain the fact from call logs that the calls were made for calling the engineer for cleaning the said phone on 15.07.2020.  The complainant vide his averment had stated that the engineer forgot to paste the battery on 14.07.2020 so he visited on 28.07.2020 to paste the battery.  During the pasting of the battery on 28.07.2020, the phone was got shut down completely.  To which, the OP had denied vehemently of the said pasting of battery on 28.07.2020.  However, the OP had denied the damage of touch screen.  As there is no linkage in replacement of battery and touch screen.  The Whatsapp message of complainant mention “the shaking of battery and it seems battery is not properly pasted”.

          This Commission is heavily relying on the fact that when battery was replaced and the complainant transferred the amount to the company.  It goes to convince us that the complainant could have satisfied himself before the amount was transferred.  There was no complaint or correspondence between 14.07.2020 to 28.07.2020 so as to accept the averment of the complainant.  On these facts, this Commission is convinced that there was no deficiency in service on the part of OP.  As regards to other allegation, these may be purely allegations. No substantive material evidence was found on record by the Commission.

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, and discussion held above, this Commission is of the considered view that there was no deficiency in service or negligence on the part of OP.  Hence, the complaint being devoid of merits, is rejected/dismissed.

          No order as to the costs.

File be consigned to the record room after giving copy of the order to the parties as per rules.