Order

ORAL ORDER

(Dated:- 11^th March, 2020)

Per – Hon’ble Justice Shri A. P. Bhangale, President We have heard the Appellant/Complainant in person and learned counsel Adv.

Rahul S. Gandhi on behalf of the Respondent No.3 at length. Nobody was present on behalf of other Respondents when the matter was heard. We have also perused the material placed on record.

[2] By the present appeal, the Appellant (original Complainant) has questioned the legality of impugned judgment and order dated 07/03/2015 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Pune; dismissing Consumer Complaint No.114 of 2014.

[3] In brief, it is the case of the Appellant/Complainant that, he had bought one APPLE iPhone 4S mobile handset for an amount of Rs.44,500/- from the Respondent No.1, The Mobile Store, having address at Chandan Nagar, Pune together with extended warranty policy from the Respondent No.4, United India Insurance Company Limited and as per the warranty clause and as per the trade policy of the Respondent No.3, Apple Company, in case of any defect in the said mobile phone, it was to be replaced immediately. Service Report No.4677 dated 28/08/2013 prepared by Unicorn Infosolutions Pvt. Ltd. (Respondent No.2 herein) show diagnosis details as follows:-

“Checked the phone. Clean the speaker, Reset all settings, Restore with iTunes, problem find in hardware, it needs to Replaced the phone as on Apple India policy”

[4] It is the contention of the Appellant that the Respondent No.2, service centre before making this particular endorsement also found that the speaker was not working and despite this endorsement, the mobile handset was delivered to the Appellant. This particular Service Report No.4677 dated 28/08/2013 prepared by Respondent No.2, Unicorn Infosolutions Pvt. Ltd., appears to have been duly signed by the Appellant/Complainant as well as by the representative of the said service centre. From the documents on record we also find that there was extended warranty under Policy No.EXWAR0640335 from Respondent No.4, United India Insurance Company Limited, mentioning the date of purchase of handset as 23/06/2012, date of purchase of policy as 23/06/2012, purchase price of the handset as of Rs.44,500/-, IMEI number of said mobile handset. Furthermore, on perusal of Job Sheet and Delivery Receipt bearing Claim Reference No.1615/2013, it appears that the Appellant/Complainant had received his mobile handset under protest as he was not satisfied with the repairs carried out by the Respondents. Appellant/Complainant had also lodged a complaint with Customer Service Centre of the Respondent No.3, manufacturer of the mobile handset.

[5] Learned counsel for the Respondent No.3 supported the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned District Forum, Pune. It is his contention that United India Insurance Company Limited was not impleaded as a party to the complaint proceedings before the learned District Forum and it came to be impleaded as a party Respondent No.4 in present appeal proceedings.

[6] On perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned District Forum, Pune we find that the learned District Forum has observed that, the extended warranty was given by United India Insurance Company Limited and not by either of the Opposite Parties Nos.1 to 3. It also further observed that, the problem occurred in the mobile handset after completing one year of warranty which was given by the Respondent/Opposite Party No.3, manufacturer and in such circumstances, the Appellant/Complainant has a cause of action only against United India Insurance Company Limited. However, here it is pertinent to note that, the learned District Forum, Pune did not bother to direct the Appellant/Complainant to implead United India Insurance Company Limited, as a necessary party in the array of the Opposite Parties so as to redress the grievance of the Appellant/Complainant. In such circumstances, considering the date of purchase in the year 2012, it is least exp