BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL.
Complaint Case No.428 of 2019.
Date of institution: 13.12.2019.
Date of decision:14.02.2022.
Sunil Kumar aged 36 years s/o Sh. Dharam Pal Sagwal r/o Bola Patti, VPO Kaul, Tehsil Dhand, District Kaithal.
…Complainant.
Versus
- Darshita Aashiyana Private Limited No.1/B, Indo Space Logistics Park Puduvoyal Durainallur Village Ponneri Taluka Thiruvalluvar-601206, Tamilnaidu.
- New Mass Communication (RSI), SCO No.152, First Floor Mughal Canal Market, Karnal-132001 through its Proprietor/partner Mob.9355913051.
- Huawei Telecommunications (India) Co. Pvt. Ltd., 14th Floor Tower C Unitech Cyver Park, Sector-39, Gurgaon-122002 through its M.D.
….Respondents.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act
CORAM: DR. NEELIMA SHANGLA, PRESIDENT.
SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.
SH. RAJBIR SINGH, MEMBER.
Present: Complainant in person.
Respondents No.1 & 2 exparte.
Sh. Vikram Tiwari, Advocate for the respondent.No.3.
ORDER
DR. NEELIMA SHANGLA, PRESIDENT
Sunil Kumar-Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the respondents.
In nutshell, the facts of present case are that the complainant had purchased a mobile Honour 8x (Blue, 4GBRAm 64GB Storage) X000X3BYTN bearing IMEI No.867197041896842 from the respondent No.1 through online vide invoice No.MAA4-496243 dated 11.10.2018 vide order ID403-5387179-7605150. The case of complainant is that in the first week of August, 2019 the above-said mobile set became defective and it created trouble and its volume up keys were not working. On 26.08.2019 the complainant submitted the said mobile set with the respondent No.2 for its repair but the respondent No.2 returned the said mobile set with the allegation that “handset found liquid damage near volume key flex and pcb”. The complainant requested the respondents several times to repair or replace the said mobile set but the respondents did not redress the grievances of complainant. So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of respondents and prayed for acceptance of complaint.
2. Upon notice, the respondent No.3 appeared before this Commission, whereas respondents No.1 & 2 did not turned-up and were proceeded against exparte vide order dt. 28.01.2020 of this commission. Respondent No.3 contested the complaint by filing their written version raising preliminary objections with regard to locus-standi; maintainability; cause of action; In fact, the unit of complainant has got damaged/defective due to liquid logging (i.e. contact with any type of fluid/liquid) and as per warranty policy of the respondent company, it is the violation of the warranty condition and the repair of unit cannot be provided free of cost. There is no deficiency in service on the part of respondent. On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3. To prove his case, the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Anneuxre-C1 to Annexure-C6 and thereafter, closed the evidence.
4. On the other hand, the respondent No.3 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-R1 to Annexure-R3 and thereafter, closed the evidence.
5. We have heard both the parties and perused the record carefully.
6. Sh. Sunil Kumar appearing in person stated that he had purchased a mobile Honour 8x (Blue, 4GBRAm 64GB Storage) X000X3BYTN bearing IMEI No.867197041896842 from the respondent No.1 through online vide invoice No.MAA4-496243 dated 11.10.2018 vide order ID403-5387179-7605150. He argued that within 10 months, the said mobile set was got damaged. He went to the service-centre of Ops but they asked for a huge bill for repairing the same. He asked the respondents also to get it repaired or replaced as there was one year warranty for the said mobile set. Sh. Vikram Tiwari, Adv. for the respondent No.3 has stated that although the said mobile set was in warranty period but it cannot be replaced as lots of water had entered near the volume key flex and returned. He has further stated that in warranty period, liquid damage is not covered as per warranty card.
Rebutting his arguments, Sh. Sunil Kumar complainant in person has stated that there is no proof regarding the entrance of liquid near volume key flex because when he personally approached the service-centre of the Ops, they did not show this alleged aforesaid damage of liquid to him and neither any videography was shown to him. He has further stated that to avoid for giving replacement of the mobile set, or to replace the defective item in the mobile set, respondents have concocted the story of liquid damage. However, no proof has been shown, only one photograph has been placed on record having some spots. But it is not clarified that this is the liquid damage. This is the photograph of liquid damage in the mobile set. Reliance is placed on the authority given by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharathi Knitting Vs. D.H.L. Worldwide 1996(4) SCC 704, in which it has been held that in case of specific term in the contract, the parties will be bound by the terms of the contract.
7. In the present case, the mobile set was within warranty period of one year as complainant Sunil Kumar had purchased the mobile set in question on 11.10.2018. The damage in the mobile set through liquid is not proved to the hilt by the respondents as respondents No.1 & 2 are also proceeded against exparte and respondent No.3 is represented through Sh. Vikram Tiwari, Adv. Due to non-proving of the damage in the mobile set through the entrance of water is not proved cogently by the respondents. Hence, the present complaint is accepted with the direction to respondents to replace the mobile set with the new one or to refund the amount of Rs.14,999/- alongwith interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of this complaint till its realization within two months from today. In default, penal interest of 9% p.a. shall be given by the respondents jointly and severally. A copy of said order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to record-room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
Dt.:14.02.2022.
(Dr. Neelima Shangla)
President.
(Rajbir Singh), (Suman Rana),
Member. Member.
Typed by: Sanjay Kumar, S.G.
