By Smt. Beena. M, Member:
This is a complaint preferred under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.
2. Brief facts of the case are as follows:- The Complainant had purchased an International Mobile I phone 13 128GB with adapter, pouch and glass for an amount of Rs.60,700/-, said to be international model, from Opposite Party. The Complainant went to the shop of the Opposite Party after seeing their offer advertisement.
3. When the friends of the Complainant told him that said I phone is not an international model, but an Indian model then only the Complainant recognized it. When the Complainant went to the institution of Opposite Party for making complaint, they insulted in front of others. The act of the Opposite Party is deficiency in service. Hence, this complaint.
4. Upon notice, Opposite Party appeared and filed their version. In version, the Opposite Party submitted that on 15/02/2023, the Complainant had visited the Opposite Party establishment and asked for an I Phone 13 with international warranty and after asking for it, the salesman of the Opposite Party establishment showed the I Phone 13 manufactured by Apple Company and informed the Complainant that the manufacturing company is providing international warranty for it and after being convinced by himself, he paid Rs.60,700/- and purchased mobile from the Opposite Party’s establishment and issued an invoice to the Complainant. The Opposite Party denied the statement in the Complaint that the Complainant demanded I Phone 13 but the Opposite Party given Indian model. On the packing cover of the I Phone itself, the model of the said phone is printed exactly as given to the Complainant. Also, in the settings of the phone, the phone model is recorded in the menu that contains information about the phone. Only after verifying all these matters, the Complainant bought the phone from the Opposite Party. They further stated that the Opposite Party organization which is one of the authorized dealers of I Phone in Kalpetta has legal right to sell only Indian model I Phone. As no authorized dealer has the right to sell the international model I Phone and it is illegal to do so as it leads to tax evasion, the Complainant has made the above allegation only to defame the Opposite Party’s company. Actually, came to the Opposite Party’s establishment after buying the phone and using it for one and a half months and asked to take it back and refund the price of Rs.60,700/- came to the Opposite Party establishment. When the Opposite Party refused to take back, the Complainant made noise in front of other customers. The Opposite Party denied all other allegations of the Complainant. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party prays to dismiss the complaint with costs.
5. Here the Complainant has not adduced any evidence to substantiate his grievance. The order sheet reveals that after filing the complaint, the complainant remained absent. The Complainant never appeared in the Commission in spite of several opportunities were given to him. He has not even cared to submit the affidavit and no documents were marked. A registered notice was issued to the Complainant, but he did not appear before the Commission. Opposite Party represented in all the posting dates and filed version and proof affidavit. The Complainant failed to cross examine the Opposite Party. Here the Complainant is failed to prove the case.
In the result the Complaint is dismissed without costs.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission on this the day of 17th May 2024.
Date of filing:08.03.2023.
PRESIDENT: Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
APPENDIX.
Witness for the Complainant:
Nil.
Witness for the Opposite Party:
OPW1. Muhammed Ashiq. K Manager, IMAGE Mobiles & Company.
Exhibits for the Complainant:
Nil.
Exhibits for the Opposite Party:
Nil.
PRESIDENT: Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
