Delhi

North

CC/169/2018

ABHISHEK SETHI - Complainant(s)

Versus

iQOr GLOBAL SERVICE INDIA PVT. LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

MUKESH KUMAR

13 May 2024

ORDER

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I (North District)

[Govt. of NCT of Delhi]

Ground Floor, Court Annexe -2 Building, Tis Hazari Court Complex, Delhi- 110054

Consumer Complaint No.:169/2018

In the matter of

 

Sh. Abhishek Sethi

Through his attorney Sh. Sanjay Sethi,

12-C, Underhill Lane, Civil Lines,

Delhi-110054.                                     …                                   Complainant

                                                          Vs

IQOR Global Service India Pvt. Ltd.

147, Sector-5, (MT) Manesar,

Haryana-122051.

 

Also at:

Shop No.107,

1^st floor, Spark Mall,

Kamla Nagar, Delhi-110007.               …                                    Opposite Party

 

ORDER

13/05/2024

Ashwani Kumar Mehta, Member:-

 

1.       The present complaint has been filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The brief details of facts, as alleged by the Complainant in the Complaint in hand, are that:-

 

1. the complainant had purchased Apple Macbook (Ratina) Laptop with description MF839HN/A Pro13-Inch Ratina Cor Serial No. SC02S5D5HFVH3 for a sum of Rs.92,900/ against invoice No. IBS/C/ 16-17/ 02463 on 24.8.2016 (hereinafter called the said Laptop). The warranty period of the said Laptop have already been lapsed. However, in the month of August, 2018, the said product start troubling to the complainant and the complainant approached the opposite party and apprised it about persistent problem which he has been facing for few days and the opposite party gave assurance that the said defect would be removed and issued invoice No. 231/AR00748 dated 2 August, 2018 for Rs.2,500/- with warranty of 90 days with respect to the defects removed by the opposite party.
2. On 07.08.2018, the respondent/ opposite party returned the said Laptop to the complainant assuring the complainant that they have removed the defect and said Laptop is free from defect and would run uninterruptedly.

While delivering the said Laptop vide delivery challan dated 07.08.2018, following endorsement were made:-

 

"DIAGNOSIS DETAILS: Cleaned and refixed part Diagnostic passed. Device is working fine, same unit returned to customer."

3. However, the said Laptop started giving same trouble which was allegedly claimed to have been removed which caused huge mental tension to the complainant due to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The opposite party deliberately contravention intentionally made their own terms and conditions stipulated in the agreement as mentioned in Clause No.7.  The general problem i.e. “not turning on and device is getting shut down intermittently” persisted on 08.08.2018 and 14.08.2018 and time and again on various dates. As such, the opposite party malafidely. intentionally returned the said Laptop claiming to be perfect and fine in all respects, with the endorsement as under:-

"13.8.2018:-

Diagnosis details : Devise turn on its working perfectly fine, same unit returned to the customers"

 

"18.8.2018:-

Diagnosis details Re-installed OS.X.Test and observed. Device is working fine, same unit returned".

 

2.       It has further been alleged that on 20.8.2018, the problems remained continued in the said laptop and the opposite party failed to do the needful in order to remove the defects and which clearly manifest the respondent/opposite party failed to rectify the defects pointed out by the complainant in the said Laptop despite having taken charges which tantamount to glaring deficiency in service. The photo copy of delivery challans and the service request have been filed with the complaint to substantiate that the opposite party had made intentional breach of the contract and terms and conditions of the service. It is further stated that due to the above said acts, omission and commission on the part of the opposite party, the complainant had visited in person to the opposite party and spent more than Rs.5,000/ on conveyance and also suffered huge mental loss, agony, harassment, waste of time, and also suffered loss due to the non-removal of the defects by opposite party by and the complainant assesses the damages on the above said accounts to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/ which the respondent/opposite party are liable but have not paid despite repeated requests and demands of the complainant.

3.       The complainant had also sent a legal notice to the respondent/opposite party through mail on 27.8.2018 but the opposite party failed to respond to the said notice nor complied with the said notice. Therefore, the Complainant has filed this complaint praying for direction to the opposite party to get the defects in the laptop removed and also pay Rs.5,00,000/- as damages for mental loss, agony, waste of time, conveyance, harassment, inconvenience and loss of work due to the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The Complainant has also filed the copies of invoice dated 24.08.2016, invoice dated 02.08.2018 of Rs.2,500/-, delivery challans dated 07.08.2018, 13.08.2018 and 18.08.2018, service call report dated 20.08.2018 and legal notice dated 27.08.2018 and SPA dated 07.09.2018.

4.       Accordingly, notice was issued to the OP to defend the complaint before the commission but the OP neither appeared nor did send any communication despite service of the notice. Since the OP has chosen not to contest the allegations levelled in the complaint despite service, it has been proceeded Ex-parte.

5.       The complainant has filed evidence by way of Affidavit. Therefore, the complaint has been examined on the basis of the documents/evidences and material available on records. Since the OP has been proceeded ex-parte and the allegations remained unrebutted, a thorough examination of the allegations were required to be examined by the Commission on the basis of the available records, for judicious redressal of the grievance of the consumer. However, on the perusal of the allegations levelled in the complaint and the documents filed with the complaint, it has been observed that the Complainant has claimed that as per the warranty of repair carried out by the OP on 02.08.2018 was 90 days for which payment of Rs.2,500/- was  made on 02.08.2018. Thereafter, the delivery challans dated 02.08.20218, 08.08.2018 and 14.08.2018 have also been filed which indicates that defects/faults were removed by the OP without any charges. The General Problem & diagnoseS details mentioned in the delivery challans are furnished below date wise:-     

Date/ close date	General Problem	Diagnosis Details
02.08.2018/ 07.08.2018	Other General Problem Not turning on	Cleaned and re-fixed parts. Diagnostics passed. Device is working fine. Same unit returned to the customer
08.08.2018/ 13.08.2018	Other General Problem-  NOT TURNING ON (NPO)	Device turned on. Its working perfectly fine. Same unit return to the customer.
14.08.2018/ 18.08.2018	Other General Problem- DEVICE IS GETTING SHUT DOWN INTERMITANT PROBLEM	Re-installed OS X. Test and observed. Device is working fine. Same unit returned.

 

 Thereafter, as per call report dated 20.08.2018 submitted by the Complainant, the laptop was submitted for diagnosis for the problem –“NOT TURNING ON. INTERMITENT ISSUE”. However, in the legal notice dated 27.08.2018 sent to the OP, the Complainant has referred about the estimate of Rs.42,000/- for carrying out the repair  of laptop submitted to OP as per Call Report dated  20-02-2018 but the same estimate has not been placed on record to prove as to whether the faults diagnosed were the same as diagnosed on 02.08.2018 or other than that. During arguments, it was noticed that the details of the estimate of Rs.42,000/- has also not been discussed in the complaint and the complainant could not explain any satisfactory reason about this. Thereafter, an application dated 08.03.2022 was filed by the complainant for re-argument wherein the allegation of estimate of amount of Rs.42,000/- has been admitted as layman claim. It has further been stated that the said claim averred in the alleged notice does not inspire any confidence and veracity of the fact. The reasons, for not incorporating this claim in Complaint, have been explained as under:-

1. There is nothing on record that the alleged Anand gave advise to the Complainant’s father at the behest of the company. Moreover, his advise cannot be considered as the advise of the respondent.
2. Respondent company has not mentioned the said fact regarding replacement in diagnosed column in delivery challan dated 02.08.2018, 08.08.2018, 14.08.2018, 20.08.2018.
3. That subject device is since lying with the Opposite Party.

6.       Further, it has also been seen that the device was out of warranty period and required to be repaired/corrected on payment.  Therefore, the OP had provided 90 days warranty on 02.08.2018 in case the same defect would again arise and as per the documents filed, the OP has repaired the device three times without any charges. Further, as per the averments of the complainant discussed at para 5 (a) and (b) above, the complainant’s allegation of estimated charges of repair amounting to Rs.42000/- are also baseless. As such, no deficiency in service has been observed on the part of OP.

7.       The facts explained above are sufficient to corroborate that the complainant has come before the Commission with unclean hands and without narration of the facts in its true sense. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of S.P. Chengalvaraya Naida Vs. Jagannath (AIR 1994 SC 853) is relevant in the matter that one who comes to the court, must come with clean hands. It has further been observed in this matter that "We are constrained to say that more often than not, process of the court is being abused. Property grabbers, tax-evaders, bank loan dodgers and other unscrupulous persons from all walk of life find the court- process a convenient lever to retain the illegal gains indefinitely. We have no hesitation to say that a person, whose case is based on falsehood, has no right to approach the court, he can be summarily thrown out at any stage of litigation."

8.       In view of the above discussion, the complaint is dismissed. The Complainant is at liberty to collect its device from the OP on payment of the requisite charges of repair.

9.       Order be given dasti to the parties in accordance with rules. Order be also uploaded on the website. Thereafter, file be consigned to the record room.

 

 

ASHWANI KUMAR MEHTA                                           DIVYA JYOTI JAIPURIAR

     Member                                                                               President       

                                                 DCDRC-1 (North)                                                             DCDRC-1 (North)