Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/706/2019

Tapan Bhanot - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mg. Director Cashify ScreenPro - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

11 Oct 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint  No	:	706 of 2019
Date  of  Institution	:	02.08.2019
Date   of   Decision	:	11.10.2023

 

 

 

 

 

Tapan Bhanot, H.No.3090, Sector 37-D, Chandigarh 160037

             …..Complainant

 

Versus

1]  Managing Director, Cashify Screen Pro, Regd. Office – Manak Waste Management Pvt. Ltd, 15, Gautam Apartments, near Gulmohar Park, New Delhi, Delhi 110049

2]  Managing Director, Refurbind Tech Private Limited, Office Address: Third Floor and firth Floor, Plot No.54, Delta Tower, Sector 44, Institutional Area, Gurgaon, Haryana 122002

3]  Managing Director, Refurbind Tech Private Limited, Regd. Address: B2-1402, 14F, Parsavnath Exotica Tower-B, Golf Course Road, Sector 53, Gurgaon, Haryana 122011

   ….. Opposite Parties

 

 

BEFORE:  MR.AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU,       PRESIDENT

                MR.B.M.SHARMA                 MEMBER

 

Argued by:  None for complainant

Sh.Sethi Kumar, Adv. proxy for Sh.Gopal Mittal, Counsel for OP No.1

OPs No.2 & 3 exparte

 

PER B. M. SHARMA, MEMBER

 

        The case of the complainant precisely is that he got the display screen of his Apple iPhone 6s replaced, as the upper protective glass of the display screen was broken, on 11.4.2019 from the OPs and paid advance amount of Rs.2700/- online.  It is stated that the representative of the OPs visited the house of the complainant to do the job against the said service order and replaced the display screen and old display screen was taken away by him.  However, after few days of usage, the home button, in the display screen, replaced by the OPs stopped working.  It is submitted that the defect in the replaced display screen was reported to the OP No.1. It is also submitted that the complainant intimated the OPs that the display screen so supplied by the OPs is faulty and requested for its replacement, but the same was denied being not covered under warranty.  It is submitted that the OPs supplied him faulty display screen’s motherboard installed by the OP NO.1.  It is stated that the complainant has been supplied with defective part/material by the OPs.  Hence, this complaint alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs.

 

2]       The OP NO.1 has filed written version and while admitting the factual matrix of the case about sale of the display screen online, stated that the said product was provided by the OPs No.2 & 3.  It is stated that as per replacement policy, the OP No.1 has taken the old display screen which was duly agreed upon by the complainant. It is submitted that the defect in the Home Button is no related to Display issue, so the OP No.1 has not liability for the replacement of the screen. It is also submitted that the defect in the Home Button in the mobile of the complainant is not covered under the warranty policy for the new display screen purchased by him.  It is also pleaded that the liability of any alleged defect in the display screen is of the OPs No.2 & 3.  Denying remaining allegations and pleading no deficiency in service, the OP No.1 prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

    The OPs No.2 & 3 did not turn up despite service of notice, hence they were proceeded exparte vide order dated 19.11.2019 & 7.11.2019 respectively.

3]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

4]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the OP NO.1 and have gone through entire documents on record.

 

5]       From the pleading and documents on record, it is made out that the claim of the complainant is that the display screen so supplied by the OPs was faulty, as a result, the Home Button of his iphone was not working, resultantly his phone became non-functional, whereas the stand of the OP No.1 is that the display screen supplied to the complainant was not having any fault/defect and that the alleged defect in the Home Button of the phone of complainant is not covered under the warranty policy of display screen and the same is a non-display issue.  In this view of the matter, it is observed that the complainant has not brought forwards any technical report or such evidence to prove the alleged defect in the display screen in question due to which the home button of his phone was not working except email communications with the OPs, which are not sufficient to justify the allegations leveled by the complainant.

 

6]       Taking into consideration the above discussion & findings, we are of the view that no case of deficiency in service is made out against the OPs.  Therefore, the present complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.

         The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

11.10.2023                                                            Sd/-

 (AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

 (B.M.SHARMA)

MEMBER