Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/122/2020

Rohit Jarial - Complainant(s)

Versus

Google - Opp.Party(s)

Sajjal Sharma

01 Aug 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/122/2020
Date of Institution	:	04/03/2020
Date of Decision	:	01/08/2023

 

Rohit Jarial, aged about 33 years,  s/o Sh. Rampal Singh resident of House No.1812, Ground Floor, Sector 43-B, Chandigarh.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. Google, SCO 320, 1^st Floor, Sector 38-D, Chandigarh 160014 through SCO.
2. Electra Care, Quite Office No.1, First Floor, Opposite Kukhrain Bhawan, Chandigarh through its Proprietor/ Partner.
3. Himalya Photo Store, SCO 1032-33, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh through its Proprietor. 

… Opposite Parties

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                       

ARGUED BY	:	None for complainant
	:	OP-1 ex-parte
	:	Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Counsel for OP-2
	:	OP-3 ex-parte

 

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1. The present consumer complaint has been filed by Rohit Jarial, complainant against the aforesaid opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as the OPs).  The brief facts of the case are as under :-

1. It transpires from the allegations as projected in the consumer complaint that vide invoice dated 9.12.2017 (Annexure C-1), complainant had purchased a mobile phone (hereinafter referred to as “subject mobile”) from OP-3, which was manufactured by OP-1, for an amount of ₹48,050/-. The subject mobile was under guarantee for a period of two years. On 27.5.2019, complainant had approached OP-2 for the repair of the subject mobile as its screen was not working and after receiving the same, OP-2 issued service job card (Annexure C-2).  On the same day, OP-2 had prepared a delivery note (Annexure C-3) with the remarks that the subject mobile was found damaged, bends, cracks and breakages.  However, there was no physical damage to the subject mobile, which can also be seen from the photographs (Annexure C-4 Colly.). The subject mobile was received by the complainant under pressure from OP-2. Thereafter, the complainant sent an email to OP-1, complaining about the service and the complainant had received reply on 19.6.2019 in which it was intimated that the product was not covered under guarantee being damaged.  In this manner, OPs have refused to repair the subject mobile or replace the same despite of the fact that the same was covered under guarantee and the said act of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. OPs were requested several times to admit the claim, but, with no result.  Hence, the present consumer complaint.
2. Since OP-1 did not turn up nor filed reply and evidence despite grant of sufficient opportunity, therefore, vide order dated 23.12.2022, it was proceeded against exparte.
3. OP-2 resisted the consumer complaint and filed its written version, inter alia, taking preliminary objection of maintainability. It is also alleged that the answering OP is not the authorised service centre of OP-1 and warranty, if any, of the subject mobile is of the manufacturer and not of the service centre. The complainant has wrongly dragged the answering OP into unnecessary litigation by impleading it as a party. On merits, the facts as stated in the preliminary objections have been reiterated. The cause of action set up by the complainant is denied.  The consumer complaint is sought to be contested.
4. OP-3 did not turn up before this Commission, despite proper service, hence it was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 24.9.2020.
5. Despite grant of sufficient opportunity, rejoinder was not filed by the complainant.

2. In order to prove their case, contesting parties have tendered/proved their evidence by way of respective affidavits and supporting documents.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for OP-2 and also gone through the file carefully.
   1. At the very outset, it may be observed that when it is an admitted case of the parties that the complainant had purchased the subject mobile from OP-3 vide invoice (Annexure C-1) for total consideration of ₹48,050/- and thereafter when he had approached the authorised service centre of OP-1 for repair of the same, it was remarked by the service centre that the subject mobile was found with scratches, dents etc. and as the same was found with severe cracks, dents, bends and breakages, it was returned to the complainant, as is also evident from customer acknowledgement form (Annexure C-2) and delivery note (Annexure C-3), the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if the subject mobile was covered under warranty period and the OPs have wrongly not provided services to the complainant, either for repair or replacement of the subject mobile and the complainant is entitled for the reliefs prayed for in the consumer complaint, as is the case of the complainant, or if the consumer complaint of the complainant is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed. 
   2. Perusal of invoice (Annexure C-1) clearly indicates that the complainant had purchased the subject mobile from OP-3 for an amount of ₹48,050/-.  Annexure C-2 clearly indicates that complainant had approached the authorised service centre of OP-1 for the repair of the subject mobile and the same was returned to him vide delivery note (Annexure C-3) with the remarks that the device had shown severe cracks, dents, bends and breakages.  In the light of the aforesaid observation made by the authorised service centre, it is to be determined if the subject mobile was covered under warranty.
   3. Copy of customer acknowledgement form (Annexure C-2) on its reverse page clearly indicates that the subject mobile is not covered under warranty as the same was found to be physically damaged.  The relevant condition No.6 of the terms and conditions is reproduced below for ready reference :-

       “6.  In case the product is found to be physically damaged, liquid damaged or tampered, same will be treated as out of warranty repair and the Customer will be required to pay charges as provided by B2X.”

 

4. It is evident from the delivery note (Annexure C-3) as well as remarks on the customer acknowledgement form (Annexure C-2) that when the complainant had approached the service centre for repair of the subject mobile, the same was found damaged having severe cracks, dents, bends or breakages and the same being not covered under warranty was returned to the complainant by the said authorised service centre.  Hence, it is safe to hold that complainant has failed to prove on record any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OPs 1 & 3.
5. So far as case of complainant against OP-2 is concerned, as he has failed to prove on record that OP-2 is the authorised service centre of OP-1, which is also the defence of OP-2 that it is not the authorised service centre of OP-1, complainant has no cause of action against OP-2 also.

4. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
5. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

Announced 01/08/2023 hg			[Pawanjit Singh] President
			[Suresh Kumar Sardana] Member