1. The brief facts of the case of the complainant are that he purchased an Apple I Phone 5s bearing purchase ID No.44288244044 for Rs.20, 989/- through e-shopping site ebay.com and the product was delivered on 09.01.2017 with 6 months warranty by OP.3 who is the trade partner of OP.1. It is submitted that the handset started giving defects from the day one of delivery and finally on 16.3.2017 the complainant sent the handset to ASC at Bhubaneswar who received the set vide case ID No.JBBU170316725860 but returned the same on 18.3.17 with remark “unauthorized modification found no eligible for service” in his delivery chalan. The complainant intimated the fact to ebay customer care who advised the complainant to lodge a complaint before OP.3. The complainant on 24.3.17 through email requested OP.3 to replace the handset and the OP.3 on the same day sent a return mail requesting the complainant to send the handset to OP.4. It is further submitted that the complainant sent the handset to OP.4 on 31.3.17 through DTDC courier which was received by OP.4 on 07.4.2017 but the complainant received back the set on 20.4.17 without any repair. Repeated requests in this regard to OP.3 did not yield any result and on 04.5.17 the OP.3 advised the complainant to send the handset again to OP.4. It is also further submitted that the complainant sent the handset again on 11.5.17. The OP.3 sent mail on 13.5.17 stating that the handset can neither be replaced nor can the amount be refunded but it can only be repaired. After few days the complainant received back the set without any repair. Thus alleging defect in goods and deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, he filed this case praying the Forum to direct the Ops to replace the set with a new defect free one and to pay Rs.35, 000/- towards compensation and costs to the complainant.
2. In spite of valid notice the Ops neither filed counter nor participated in this proceeding in any manner and hence they were set exparte. Heard from the complainant only and perused the materials available on record for orders.
3. The complainant in support of his case has furnished the Invoice dt.06.01.2017 for Rs.20, 989/- issued by the seller and hence the purchase of handset is proved. The complainant stated that he received the set on 09.1.2017 but from the day one of receipt, the handset started giving problems for which he sent the set to ASC of the Company at Bhubaneswar. The ASC received the set on 16.3.17 and returned on 18.3.17 with remark “unauthorized modification”. Knowing the fact of manipulation in the handset, the fact was immediately brought to the notice of ebay customer care who after repeated requests advised the complainant on 23.3.17 to lodge complaint with OP.3.
4. On 24.3.17 the complainant lodged complaint with OP.3 and in reply, the OP.3 on the same day requested the complainant to send the handset to OP.4. The OP.4 received the set on 07.4.17 and the complainant received back the set on 20.4.17 without any repair. As per advice of OP.3 again the handset was sent to OP.4 on 06.5.17 and after few days, the complainant received back the set without any service or repair and the set is lying unused. In absence of counter and participation of Ops, the allegations against them remained unchallenged.
5. The ASC at Bhubaneswar returned the handset with remark “unauthorized modification found not eligible for service”. This fact indicates that the handset has been repaired earlier it came to ASC. After return from ASC, the complainant as per advice of OP.3 has sent the set two time to OP.4 for repair. The said OP.4 has never stated that the handset suffers from any unauthorized repair. On both the occasions, the OP.4 returned the set stated to be repaired but actually the handset was suffering from problems after the alleged repairs by OP.4. From the above facts it became crystal clear that the complainant has never repaired the set outside the ASC and as such the statement of ASC, Bhubaneswar was proved to be untrue.
6. Further on complaint to OP.3, it stated that they are unable to provide any service to the handset as the warranty period of the product is over. It is seen that the handset was received on 09.1.2017. After noticing problems, the complainant sent the handset on 16.3.17 to ASC at Bhubaneswar. Thereafter, as per record till 11.5.2017 the OP.4 has repaired the handset for two times and besides that sufficient correspondences have been made between the parties regarding defects in the handset and non repairing etc. Finally, OP.3 denied any service stating that the warranty period of the product is over. When the Ops could not bring the set into order within the warranty period and set became non functional during said warranty period, we do not understand as to when the warranty became void. This inaction of OP.3 certainly amounts to unfair trade practice.
7. In the above facts and circumstances, we come to the conclusion that the handset has got some inherent manufacturing defect for which during warranty period and in spite of efforts, the Ops could not bring the set into working condition for which the complainant is suffering. As such the complainant is entitled for a new handset of same brand and model and if the said model and brand is not available with the Ops 1 & 3 now, they are to be directed to refund Rs.20, 989/- towards its cost with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of purchase. For the sufferings, we feel a sum of Rs.2000/- towards compensation and cost in favour of the complainant will meet the ends of justice.
8. Hence ordered that the complaint petition is allowed in part and the Ops 1 & 3 being jointly and severally liable are directed to replace a new defect free handset of Apple I phone 5s or refund its cost of Rs.20, 989/- with interest @ 12% p.a. from 09.01.2017 in lieu of defective handset and to pay Rs.2000/- towards compensation and costs to the complainant within 30 days from the date of communication of this order.
(to dict.)
