BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.438 of 2015
Date of Instt. 06.10.2015
Date of Decision : 14.07.2016
Vivek Gupta aged about 45 years son of Prem Sagar Gupta R/o H.No.319, Shaheed Udham Singh Nagar, Jalandhar.
..........Complainant
Versus
M/s Apple India Pvt Ltd., 19th Floor, Concorde Tower-C, UB City, No.24, Vittal Mallya Road, Banglore.
.........Opposite party
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: S. Bhupinder Singh (President)
Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)
Present: Sh.Ashish Goyal Adv., counsel for the complainant.
Sh.RS Sarna Adv., counsel for opposite party.
Order
Bhupinder Singh (President)
1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under the Consumer Protection Act against the opposite parties (herein called as OPs) on the averments that complainant purchased one mobile handset in question vide invoice dated 6.11.2013. The said mobile phone became defective as its display did not work properly. Complainant handed over the mobile set to the authorized service centre on 26.3.2014 vide job sheet i.e. Avtech Digital Equipment Pvt.Ltd., Shop No.186-L, Model Town, Jalandhar. Complainant submitted that the said authorized service centre neither returned the mobile set to the complainant nor replaced the same with new one and the said mobile set is still lying with that service centre of the OP. On such averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the OP to deliver the new mobile set or to refund the price of the mobile set alongwith interest. He has also claimed compensation and litigation expenses.
2. Upon notice, OP appeared through counsel and filed written reply pleading that present complaint has been filed with the malafide intention as to devise to mislead this Forum. Avtech Digital Equipments made all efforts to diagnose the problem with the alleged iPhone 5-C of the complainant when the same was brought to it on 26.3.2014. As per terms of the warranty, the company used to replace the mobile phone if it is not repairable but the complainant could not produce any evidence to support his claim. The complainant has suppressed and concealed the material facts in order to receive a replacement iPhone. Complainant knows that authorized service provider Avtech closed down in May 2014 and it was closing down that service centre Avtech issued a public notice dated 21.05.2014 in the local newspaper informing the general public to give their service report regarding pending claim so that it could clear the same before the closure. In that event if the iPhone was retained by the Avtech, the complainant should have sent them a mail to the OP to file police complaint against Avtech for allegedly retaining his iPhone. No step was taken by the complainant to recover the iPhone, if any in the custody of Avtech and Avtech was solely responsible for its business and administration and the OP was not responsible or connected with the same.
3. In support of his complaint, learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CA alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 and Ex.C2 and closed her evidence.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party has tendered affidavit Ex.OP/A alongwith copies of documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R3 and closed evidence.
5. We have heard the Ld. counsel for the parties, minutely gone through the record and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of Ld. counsels for the parties.
6. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by both the parties, it is clear that complainant purchased one mobile handset in question vide invoice dated 6.11.2013 Ex.C1. The said mobile phone became defective as its display did not work properly. Complainant handed over the mobile set to the authorized service centre on 26.3.2014 vide job sheet Ex.C2 i.e. Avtech Digital Equipment Pvt.Ltd., Shop No.186-L, Model Town, Jalandhar. Complainant submitted that the said authorized service centre neither returned the mobile set to the complainant nor replaced the same with new one and the said mobile set is still lying with that service centre of the OP. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OPs qua the complainant.
7. Whereas the case of the OP is that present complaint has been filed with the malafide intention as to devise to mislead this Forum. Avtech Digital Equipments made all efforts to diagnose the problem with the alleged iPhone 5-C of the complainant when the same was brought to it on 26.3.2014. As per terms of the warranty, the company used to replace the mobile phone if it is not repairable but the complainant could not produce any evidence to support his claim. The complainant has suppressed and concealed the material facts in order to receive a replacement iPhone. Complainant knows that authorized service provider Avtech closed down in May 2014 and it was closing down that service centre Avtech issued a public notice dated 21.05.2014 Ex.R3 in the local newspaper informing the general public to give their service report regarding pending claim so that it could clear the same before the closure. In that event if the iPhone was retained by the Avtech, the complainant should have sent them a mail to the OP to file police complaint against Avtech for allegedly retaining his iPhone. No step was taken by the complainant to recover the iPhone, if any in the custody of Avtech and Avtech was solely responsible for its business and administration and the OP was not responsible or connected with the same. Learned counsel for the OP submitted that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP qua the complainant.
8. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands. He has suppressed and concealed the material facts. During the course of arguments, complainant has admitted that earlier he had filed a complaint i.e. complaint No.290 of 2014 which was decided on 23.1.2015 by this Forum in which same dispute was involved and this Forum has decided the complaint in favour of the complainant vide order dated 23.1.2015 and Ops were directed to give new mobile handset of same make and model to the complainant within one month. Not only this, complainant was also awarded Rs.4000/- in lump sum on account of compensation and litigation expenses. Complainant has concealed all these facts from this Forum. He has not mentioned these facts in the present complaint that earlier he has filed the same complaint regarding the same dispute of the same mobile phone bearing EMI No.358552053303200 which was purchased by complainant vide invoice No.5032 dated 6.11.2013 Ex.C1 for a sum of Rs.41,000/- and that the same mobile phone became defective and was handed over to the authorized service centre vide same job sheet Ex.C2 and that case has already been decided by this Forum vide order dated 23.1.2015. Not only this, the complainant in the earlier complaint No.290 of 2014 has stated that he handed over the aforesaid mobile phone to authorized service centre i.e. M/s Business Bay, Ground Floor, 182-R, Model Town, Jalandhar and they did not return the same to the complainant; Whereas in the present complaint, he has stated that he handed over the said mobile handset to Avtech Digital Equipment Pvt.Ltd., Shop No.186-L, Model Town, Jalandhar vide same job sheet Ex.C2. Complainant is not only guilty of concealment of facts but also for telling a lie at every step. In earlier complaint he has stated that he handed over the mobile set to M/s Business Bay, Ground Floor, 182-R, Model Town, Jalandhar whereas in the present complaint he has stated that he handed over the mobile set to M/s Avtech Digital Equipment Pvt.Ltd., Shop No.186-L, Model Town, Jalandhar. All this shows that complainant has concocted this story just to extract money or to get new mobile phone or its price from the OP.
9. So under these circumstances, this Forum is of the opinion that complainant has failed to prove on record any deficiency of service on the part of the OP qua the complainant and as such complaint is without merit and same is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Dated Parminder Sharma Bhupinder Singh
14.07.2016 Member President
