FINAL ORDER/JUDGEMENT

Smt. SAHANA AHMED BASU, Member,

The case of the complainant, in brief, is that, the complainant had purchased one I-phone(6) from the OP1 at the cost of Rs.41,000/- vide bearing  IMEI No.359211075630749, I-phone 6 32-GB Gray on 03/08/2017. Within a weak the said phone started not working properly and unable to access 4G Network. Immediately the complainant informed the same to the OP1 but the OP1 did not take any action. Being aggrieved by the OP1 the complainant approached the Consumer Affairs Department on 25/05/2018. But the OP1 did not attend the meeting slated by the CAD on 05/06/2018 at 3pm. Thereafter the complainant brought the matter to the OP2 who is the service provider and on 05/06/2018 the said phone was taken by the OP2 for their observation. The said phone was returned by the OP2 on 14/06/2018 but the problem remains the same. The matter was intimated to the OP2 and they informed that they have sent the said phone to the Apple repair centre, Bangalore for their action in this matter and expressed their incapability to replace the same. Till date Ops have failed to satisfy the complainant which prompted him to file this instant complaint petition before this Commission.

OP1 did not contest the consumer complaint despite service of notice. No WV has been filed by the OP1 within the statutory period. Thus, the case runs ex parte hearing against the OP1.

OP2 have contested the case by filing W.V. assailing the maintainability of the instant consumer caseand also stated that the petition of complaint is misleading, motivated, harassing, vindictive, misconceived and a barred by limitation. The case of the OP2 is that the complainant has not established in any manner his contractual relationship with the OP2. There is no averments, no evidence, no documents to that extent. OP2 is neither a manufacturer nor seller or supplier of the alleged product. The complaint suffers from non - joinder of OPs as the manufacturer ought to have been made a necessary party to the proceeding for the purpose of better adjudication of the complaint. OP21 being a complete non entity are not authorized to replace any handset or to refund the consideration amount. Moreover OP2 does not provide any usage regarding data suffering or making phone calls. It is solely and wholly the duty and responsibility of the telecom service provider to enable its customer eligible for such usage. There is no fault of OP2 in this case at all.

In support of his case parties have tendered evidence supported by an affidavit and also relied upon documents annexed with the complaint petition. We have heard argument on merit and have also perused the record.

Evidently the complainant purchased one I-phone (6) from the OP1 by paying an amount of Rs.41,000/- and took the said phone to the OP2 due to said phone was unable to access 4G Network on 5/6/2018. During the hearing of argument one Counsel introduced himself as a Ld. Advocate for the OP3. Ld. Advocates for the OP2 and OP3both raised objection regarding non-service of amended plaint and pray for dismissal of the instant case. On scrutiny of the record it is found that an application  was filed by the complainant which was registered as MA/110/2019 on 01/03/2019 praying for adding Apple India Pvt. Ltd as OP3 to the instant complaint case.  Prayer of the complaint was allowed by this Commission by order dated15/03/2019 with the direction upon the complainant to file amended copy of the Consumer Complaint. In spite of specific order the complainant did not pay any heed to file the same despite getting several opportunities.

In view of the abovementioned fact we are of the Opinion that the instant Consumer Complaint cannot be allowed at its present form.

Hence

ORDERED

That the consumer case be and the same is dismissed without any cost.

Copy of the judgement be supplied to the parties as per rules. Judgement be uploaded on the website of this Commission forthwith for perusal of the parties.