Order No.  17  dt.  06/09/2017

          The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant purchased Apple iPhone from the dealer of o.p. no.1 i.e. Reliance Retail Ltd. on 17.9.11 for a sum of Rs.19,990/-. The complainant in the month of Oct. 2014 realized that the said phone started malfunctioning and there was extreme fluctuation in signal strength for which the complainant visited the o.p. no.1’s authorized service centre i.e. o.p. no.2 on 30.12.14. After inspection the executive of o.p. no.2 charged an amount of Rs.1150/- towards service charge and recorded the complaint as ‘Poor network signal strength and sometimes showing no service’. While checking the phone the service engineer of o.p. no.2 opened up the phone and used a round device on the front of the phone, thereafter the screen went white, following which the engineer mentioning comment on the service report that display of white screen in the phone. After a few days when the complainant went to the service centre they told him that there was a hardware problem and it would cost him Rs.8500/- to repair the phone. Thereafter the complainant did not handover the phone and raised the point of defects arose in the said phone due to wrong handling of o.p. no.2 and o.p. no.2 did not take any cognizance  of the complaint of the complainant. Subsequently the complainant handed over the phone to o.p. no.2, but no step was taken for which the complainant filed this case praying for direction upon the o.ps. to pay compensation of Rs.40,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.1000/-.

                In spite of receipt of notice the o.p. no.1 did not contest this case by filing w/v and as such, the case has proceeded ex parte against the o.p. no.1.

                The o.p. no.2 contested this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations of the complaint. It was stated that the alleged malfunction of Apple iPhone took place before the service centre long after the warranty period. The complainant should not have regarded the problem a simple one and ought to have visited the answering o.p.’s authorized service centre and committed a gross mistake by approaching a Vodafone Store. The o.p. no.2 is merely a service provider and does not manufacture the mobile phone. The complainant has suppressed the material fact by mentioning that in the report o.p. no.2 after examining the phone in question remarked ‘Poor network signal strength and sometimes showing no service’, but in the said report it was also stated that white screen waiving data back up tone. The o.p. no.2 also found that there were ‘lots of scratches and dents all over the body, crack sign on display glass, sulfur sign near dock port’. After checking the phone the technician of o.p. no.2 found hardware problem in the display and advised replacement of the same and offered the exchange price of the said phone which offer was turned down by the complainant. The phone was returned to the complainant exactly in the same condition as at time of o.p. no.2 received it. The SIM card was removed in presence of the complainant and the complainant was offered the exchanged price of Rs.9000/- which was not accepted by the complainant. There was no question of committing any fraud upon the complainant by o.p. no.2. The phone of the complainant became defective after 3 years of purchase and when the complainant found it to be defective he brought it to Vodafone Store who is not the manufacturer of the said phone. On the basis of the said fact o.p. no.2 prayed for dismissal of the case.

                On the basis of the pleadings of parties the following points are to be decided:

1. Whether the complainant purchased the said phone from o.p. no.2?
2. Whether there was any defect in the said phone during the warranty period?
3. Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of o.ps.?
4. Whether the complainant will be entitled to get the relief as prayed for?

Decision with reasons:

                All the points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of facts.

                The complainant himself argued this case and emphasized that he purchased Apple iPhone from o.p. no.2 on 17.9.11 and after the month of Oct. 2014 he noticed some problems in the said phone nad he went to o.p. no.2 for routine checkup. O.P. no.2 after necessary checking up found that there were some defects which were noted in the report handed over to the complainant. The complainant after some days noticed that the defect that was cured earlier by o.p. no.2 further appeared and white screen waiting data backup tone. The complainant thereafter went to o.p. no.2 and asked for rectification of the defects for which o.p. no.2 told the complainant that it was a hardware problem for which Rs.8500/- is required for repairing of the said phone. The complainant did not agree with the proposal of o.p. no.2 and thereafter he left the office of o.p. no.2 and since o.p. no.2  did not take any effective step for repairing of the said phone the complainant filed this case praying for compensation and litigation cost.

                Ld. lawyer for the o.p. no.2 argued that the said phone was purchased by the complainant in the year 2011 and no defect arose during the warranty period, therefore if any problem would have arisen in the said phone the complainant would have to bear the expenses. The o.p. no.2 informed the said fact to the complainant for repairing of the said phone by demanding an amount of Rs.8500/- which was not accepted by the complainant and the complainant suppressed the material fact that at the time of inspection it was also revealed that there was white screen waiving data backup tone. The said fact was suppressed by the complainant. The complainant was handed over with the said phone in the same condition as it was received from him. Ld. lawyer for o.p. no.2 argued that o.p. no.2 was not the manufacturer of the said phone, therefore he cannot be held liable for payment of any compensation. It was further alleged by o.p. no.2 that the complainant was offered Rs.9000/-, but he failed to accept the proposal of o.p. no.2 and made false allegation against the o.ps. for which o.p. no.2 prayed for dismissal of the case.

                Considering the submissions of the respective parties it is an undisputed fact that the complainant purchased the said phone at a price of Rs.19,990/- on 17.9.11. The warranty was for one year. Within the said period the complainant did not find any defect in the said phone. Subsequently with the lapse of 3 years the complainant noticed some defects and he rushed to o.p. no.2 and o.p. no.2 after inspection found  that there were some defects and on receiving necessary charges it was repaired. But subsequently alleged that due to the wrong handling of o.p. no.2 the defect arose in the said phone. But o.p. no.2 in the evidence stated that the said phone which was received from the complainant was handed over to him in the same condition. The complainant did not raise any voice at the time of receiving the phone from o.p. no.2 and subsequently made false allegation against the o.ps. that o.p. no.2  committed defect at the time of opening the phone in question. The complainant was offered an exchanged price of Rs.9000/- which was refused by the complainant and also he refused to pay an amount of Rs.8500/- for repairing charges for removal the problem in the said phone due to hardware problem that arose in the said phone at the relevant point of time. All these facts will establish that the phone purchased by any customer cannot be considered to be lifetime warranty will be provided in the said phone. The complainant had wrong conception that since he purchased the phone at a price of Rs.19,990/- the warranty will be continued forever. In this respect we can rely on a decision in respect of 1^st Appeal No.FA/243/2014 whereby it was held by Hon’ble State Commission that the District Forum should not have arrived at a decision of deficiency in service on the part of the appellant without ascertaining the real cost of such defect after appointing a technical person. The complainant did not pray for appointment of technical person to point out the defects in the said phone. On the basis of the said judgment we hold that the complainant in this case also did not bring any evidence to establish to his claim that there was defect in the said phone and to corroborate the said fact no appointment of technical expert was sought for by the complainant to examine the phone in question. On the basis of the facts and circumstances as stated above, since the problems as highlighted by the complainant arose long after the warranty period, therefore we hold that was no deficiency in service on the part of o.ps. and the complainant will not be entitled to get any relief as prayed for. Thus all the points are disposed of accordingly.

                Hence, ordered,

                That the CC No.111/2015 is dismissed ex parte against the o.p. no.1 and dismissed on contest against the o.p. no.2 without cost.

                Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.