Interference of this Commission has been sought for by M/s Sony India (P) Ltd. against the Order dated 29-06-2016, passed by the Ld. District Forum, Unit-II (Central) in CC/175/2016 whereby the complaint case has been allowed.

Brief facts of the complaint case are that in view of accidental fall of the mobile handset from Complainant’s hand, the same got damaged.  Therefore, he deposited the same at the authorized service centre of the OP to carry out due repairing.  Allegedly, instead of repairing the damage free of cost, the OPs demanded Rs. 24,000/- as repairing cost. When he raised strong protest with the OPs, the Company offered him to either accept a refurbished handset of identical model by paying 33% of the cost of handset or take a new handset at 50% discount, both of which was not acceptable to him.  Hence, the complaint.

As the OPs did not contest the case, the same was decided ex parte.

Decision with reasons

Notice was duly served upon the Respondent on 29-09-2016, but he did not turn up before this Commission.

Ld. Advocate for the Appellants submitted that the Respondent himself admitted that the subject handset got damaged after it fell down from his hand.  It is further submitted by him that when the Respondent took the damaged handset to the service centre, it was duly explained to him that the nature of damage was outside the purview of the warranty for which, he would have to pay due repairing charge, even an estimate was handed over to him.  It is submitted that the warranty provided in respect of a mobile set is a limited warranty for normal use and service and not for the cases where the damage has been caused due to mishandling of the handset.  Accordingly, the Ld. Advocate contended, there was no arbitrariness in demanding repairing charge from the customer. 

Perused the documents on record.

Undisputedly, the damage was caused to the handset of the Respondent after it fell down from his hand.  The nature of damage certainly does not fall under the category of normal wear and tear; it was a clear case of gross negligence of the Respondent. The scope of warranty, as it appears, stood limited to defects in materials and workmanship, none of which was applicable in this case. 

For this reason, it was futile on the part of the Respondent to expect free servicing from the Appellants.  Since he himself was responsible for the damage caused to the mobile handset,  his stubborn reluctance to pay due service charge cannot be appreciated under any circumstances. 

The Respondent though claimed that the handset got damaged when it fell down on the mattress of his car from his hand, I find that no proof was adduced to establish such fact.  In fact, it transpires from the order sheets of the complaint case that the Respondent did not file any affidavit in chief/evidence in support of his contention.  Thus, whether the Respondent had been economical with the truth or not could not be ascertained independently. 

Merely because the Appellants did not contest the case, it was no good reason to accept the contention of the Respondent as gospel truth.  A Court of Law must be guided by the tangible proof/immaculate evidence being placed on record by the party concerned and not by sheer rhetoric being articulated by the party concerned.   

Accordingly, I find no good reason to endorse the decision of the Ld. District Forum.

The Appeal, thus, succeeds.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

The Appeal stands allowed ex parte against the Respondent.  The impugned order is hereby set aside.