Date of Filing:21/07/2017

Date of Order:13/07/2018

BEFORE THE BANGALORE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SHANTHINAGAR BANGALORE -  27.

Dated: 13^TH DAY OF JULY 2018

PRESENT

SRI.H.R. SRINIVAS, B.Sc., LL.B.Rtd.Prl. District & Sessions Judge And PRESIDENT

SRI D.SURESH, B.Com., LL.B., MEMBER

COMPLAINT NO.2110/2017

V/s

ORDER

BY SRI.H.R. SRINIVAS, PRESIDENT:

1. This is the complaint filed in person by the complainant against the Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as O.P) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986  praying this Forum to order the OP to get his data recovered or to pay a sum of Rs.12,00,000/- as relief along with other reliefs as this Forum deems fit.

2.  The contents of the complaint in brief are that, complainant purchased on mobile phone Redmi Note 3 bearing IMEI No.#862188037229788 through online purchase on 27.7.2016.  On 19.1.2017 the said phone started malfunctioning. It was showing always as hands free cable connected even though the cable was not connected.  He removed by inserting the hands free cable a couple of time followed by rebooting the phone which did not solve the problem.  The same was reported to customer care on 28.1.2017 at about 12.15 p.m and explained the facts and the problems he faced and steps to be carried-out.  The supporting personal were thoroughly explained the problem. He requested   them to provide the current MIUI version which was provided as MIUI 18.  They advised him for a factory reset. He questioned the personnel about protecting his existing data on his phone as he had not taken the backup.

3.    Again complainant was suggested for factory reset. He did not do it since he wanted all the details and data in his phone protected and he did not take risk for factory reset as there was no memory stick in his phone.   He was suggested by the personnel to perform a backup  internal phone memory and perform a factory reset and assured that the backup would be safe and can be retrieved afterwards but he was not very sure about the same.  Again the personnel asked him to call back to the customer care after the activity. He then performed the backup of his phone as he was suggested and did a factory reset. After the reboot, he could not locate any data files nor did his initial issue was resolved.  Again he called the support center and this time another person spokes to him and he was advised that the said suggested action plan was incorrect and the data lost could not be recovered.  He was informed that he could take third party help. The same was informed to one Monu kumar Jain who is the head of the operation of O.P. Still there was no response from them and he has kept the device with him without internet connection and not been using the same, due to which he lost the critical datas and is experiencing deep mental pain.  Inspite of writing a letter to set the things right or else would proceed legally against O.P, has not resulted in the  desired result and hence the complaint.

3.     Upon issuance of notice, O.P appeared through  counsel and filed the version admitting that, the complainant purchased the Redmi Note III  mobile handset and during January 2017  in connection with speaker related issue, he approached them and was properly and appropriately guided to take backup of all the data saved in the product on MI cloud and perform a factory reset in the product for the solution of the speaker sound related issue. Thereafter, the complainant contacted customer care and informed that he has lost all the data saved in the mobile after performing a factory reset by filing a false and frivolous concocted litigation only to harass. The allegations have no basis.  At all times they guided him properly and requested him to take out the back up of all the data saved in the product on MI cloud and perform the factory reset.  However the complainant did not save or take up the data backup properly and lost the data stored in it. Because of his wrong action, he lost the data. Had the complainant saved the data in MI cloud, he would not have lost the same.  He was also asked by them to approach the authorized service center for which he refused.  There are no supporting evidence produced to prove the allegations. The allegations or bald and without any basis.  Had he approached the O.P or any of its service center they would have ensured that the defects in the product duly repaired as per the applicable warranty condition.    He has not provided any proof regarding storing of any data and loss of the same. In view of this the complaint deserves to be dismissed. O.P has denied all the contents of the complaint para wise and pray the forum to dismiss the complaint.

4.     In order to substantiate the case, Complainant and O.P have filed their affidavit evidence along with documents. Heard the arguments. The following points arise for our consideration:-

1)   Whether the complainant has proved

      deficiency in service on the part of the

      Opposite Party?

2)  Whether the complainant is entitled to

     the relief prayed for in the complaint?

5.     Our answers to the above points are:-

POINT 1 :      In the Negative.

POINT 2 :      In the Negative

      for the following:

REASONS

ON POINT No.1 & 2:-

6.     Complainant has produced several e-mail that has taken place between him and the O.P. From this it can be ascertain that the data stored in the mobile of the complainant got erased. It is the specific case of the complainant that since men of the O.P instructed him to do certain things which he carried-out has been the cause the eraser of data.  It is not made clear as to  what  was the instruction given by the O.P’s men and also not clear as to what the complainant has done.  It may be by pressing a wrong button also, the data might have been erased.  The exchanges of emails clearly establishes the data erased could not be recovered. When such being the case, in the absence of clear cut evidence as to what was instructed by O.P, it cannot be held that O.Ps are responsible for the erasing of the data.   The deficiency in service has not been proved by the complainant. When such being the case, the complainant is not entitled for the compensation he has claimed. In fact he has not stated as to what was the data collected earlier and what was erased due to the instruction given by men of O.P. Further there is no evidence whatsoever that the complainant has suffered damages to the extent of Rs.12,00,000/- the Complainant is bereft of the details. Hence we answer Point No.1 and 2 in the Negative and pass the following:

ORDER

1. The Complaint is hereby dismissed. Parties are directed to bear their own cost.

2. Send a copy of this order to both parties free of cost.

(Dictated to the Stenographer over the computer, typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this 13^th Day of JULY 2018)

MEMBER                        PRESIDENT

*RAK

ANNEXURES

1. Witness examined on behalf of the Complainant/s by way of affidavit:

CW-1:- Shivashankar C.S. -Complainant.

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Complainant/s:

Doc.No.1: Copy of email transaction between complainant and O.P.

Doc.No.2: Copy of purchase of mobile.

Doc.No.3: copy of the acknowledgement of the registered post.

2. Witness examined on behalf of the Opposite party/s by way of affidavit:

RW-1: Sameer B.S –Authorized Representative of O.P

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Opposite Party/s

- Nil -

MEMBER                        PRESIDENT