View 1745 Cases Against Computer
Sidhant Garg filed a consumer case on 04 Dec 2017 against InfoTech Computer & Communication in the Karnal Consumer Court. The case no is CC/118/2015 and the judgment uploaded on 29 Dec 2017.
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.
Complaint No. 118 of 2015
Date of instt. 12.06.2015
Date of decision 04.12.2017
Sidhant Garg son of Suresh Garg resident of House no.172-B, Ward no.10, Tarori District Karnal.
……..Complainant.
Versus
1. Infotech Computer & Communication, SCO 204, Sector 12, Urban Estate, Karnal.
2. Apple iphone, Apple India Pvt.Ltd. 19,Floor, Concord Tower-C, UBC no.24, Vittala Malya Road, Banglore-560001 Karnataka
..…Opposite Parties.
Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
Before Sh. Jagmal Singh……….President.
Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.
Present: Shri Pankaj Malhotra Advocate for the complainant.
OP no.1 exparte.
Shri Dheeraj Sachdeva Adv. for opposite party no.2.
(JAGMAL SINGH, PRESIDENT)
ORDER:
This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, on the averments that his mobile bearing IEMI no.351984067768135 creating problem touch sensor and to rectify the same he approached the OP no.1 on 10.06.2015 on that day the phone is in the working condition. OP no.1 asked him to come after 2/3 hours to take his phone. He visited the office of OP no.1 after 2/3 hours, they returned the phone in switch off condition. He asked to OP that his phone was why switched off. Official of OP no.1 told that his phone was not working now as his phone was in working condition before its deposit to the OP no.1 only the problem of sensor in the phone. He requested the OP no.1 to return his phone in working condition, but OP no.1 did not pay any heed to his request. In this way there was deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence complainant filed the present complaint.
2. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs. OP no.2 appeared and filed written statement stating therein that OP no.1 which is authorized service provider of OP no.2 diligently undertook efforts to diagnose the alleged problem with the iphone 5s,16GB, Gold sr. no.F2LN149GFRC6, IMEI: 351984067768135 when it was brought to the OP no.1 by the complainant. Accordingly, OP no.1 made a Visual Manual Inspection on the iphone as presented by the complainant. During the inspection it was found that there were unauthorized modifications. Further, it was found that the display found in the said unit belonged to a different device, which the customer, disputed. Hence service was denied as the product was out of warranty and the complainant was informed about it. Hence there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OP no.2 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. OP no.1 did not appear despite service, hence exparte proceedings are initiated against it.
4. Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C1 and documents Ex.C2 and Ex.C3 and closed the evidence on 18.10.2016.
5. On the other hand OP no.2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Priyesh Poovanna Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.R2 to Ex.R8 and closed the evidence on 20.1.2017.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.
7. From the pleadings and evidence of the parties, it is clear that the complainant has a mobile phone having IMEI: 351984067768135 and same was deposited with OP no.1 on 10.6.2015, vide job sheet Ex.C-3 with the problem of sensor and battery. The OP no.2 is the manufacturer of the said mobile phone. According to OP no.2, the said mobile was given to OP no.1 with touch sensor issue but on visual manual Inspection, it was found that there was unauthorized modifications, display in the said unit was found belonged to a different device, so the service was denied as the product was out of warranty as per the terms and condition of the warranty and the complainant was informed about the same and the unit was returned. The learned counsel for OP no.2 argued that no doubt the OP no.1 could not file the written statement but the complainant has to prove its case by cogent evidence. He further argued that the unit was having dent and scratches as is clear from the job sheet Ex.C-3 placed on the file by the complainant. He further argued that on inspection the unit was found tempered as there were unauthorized modifications, so the same was out of warranty and accordingly the complainant was informed and the mobile phone was returned. The argument of OPs found support from the job sheet Ex.C-3, whereas the complainant has not produced any such document vide which it can be proved that there was no such tampering. From the job-sheet Ex.C-3 placed on the file by complainant, it is clear that the unit (mobile in question) was having scratches and dent as well as on inspection, it was found damaged and tempered. So, the document of complainant itself proved the case of OPs. In these circumstances, we are of the considered view that the complainant has failed to prove the allegations levelled by him in his complaint or any deficiency on the part of the OPs. Hence, it cannot be said that there was any deficiency on the part of the OPs.
8. Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we do not find any merit in the present complaint and the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced
Dated:4.12.2017
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Karnal.
(Anil Sharma)
Member
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.