BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no.137 of 2015 Date of Institution : 7.8.2015
Date of Decision : 28.2.2017.
Jarnail Singh @ Bharat Kumar son of Shri Sardari Lal, resident of village Ottu, Tehsil Rania, District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. Ambika Mobile and Repairing Center, Mobile Market, Old Bus Stand, Rania, District Sirsa, through its partner/ proprietor.
2. Customer Care Centre, Spice Mobile, Near Shiv Chowk, Sirsa, District Sirsa, through its Incharge/ Manager.
3. Spice Mobiles, Stellar 524, Customer Care Executive C/O Spice Retail Limited, S Global Knowledge Park, 19A & 19B, Sector 125, Noida- 201301 Uttar Pradesh, through its Managing Director.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI S.B.LOHIA……………………….…PRESIDENT
SH.RANBIR SINGH PANGHAL …… …MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Vanshdeep, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Sandeep Midha, Advocate for the opposite party No.1.
Opposite party No.2 exparte.
Sh. R.K. Mehta, Advocate for opposite party no.3.
ORDER
Brief facts of the complaint are that on 9.7.2015, complainant purchased one mobile spice-524 from opposite party no.1 for a sum of Rs.6300/- vide bill/invoice No.1906 dated 9.7.2015 with guarantee of one year of all types of manufacturing defect. After purchase of said mobile, it could not work properly and after few days i.e. on 18.7.2015 the battery of the above said mobile was badly burnt and due to this burning of mobile the sofa set of complainant was also burnt. The complainant immediately approached op no.1 on whose instance, he visited op no.2 and handed over mobile to op no.2 but op no.2 refused to repair or replace the said mobile on the pretext that there is no guarantee of its burning in any manner. Even op no.2 refused to prepare job sheet. In this manner, the complainant has been harassed by the ops as he is making rounds to them on many occasions since 18.7.2015 but to no effect rather they have misbehaved with the complainant. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite party no.1 appeared and replied that op no.1 is the dealer of the company and the company gives the warranty of any mobile as per the warranty condition of the company but any burning defect is not covered under the warranty. However, the op no.3 is liable for all kind of loss/ defect during the warranty period. Further more, any mobile set could occur fault/ defect due to non use according to instructions, due to causes beyond control of human being like lightening, abnormal voltage etc.
3. Initially, op no.2 appeared through its representative but thereafter none appeared on its behalf and as such op no.2 was proceeded against exparte.
4. OP no.3 appeared and filed written statement submitting therein that every genuine handset carries limited warranty of one year against any manufacturing defect. However, as per the limited warranty conditions, the consumer shall have no coverage or benefits under this limited warranty if the product has been subjected to abnormal use, abnormal condition, improper storage, exposure to moisture or dampness, exposure to excessive temperature, unauthorized modifications/ repair, negligence and accident etc. There are various aspects in which the battery/ handset could be burnt, some of the reasons are given hereunder:-
a) Using of sub-standard charger could lead to damage to the handset/ battery.
b) Any alternate means to boost the defective battery could damage internal protection circuitry and then result in burning.
c) Liquid logged handset could result in short circuit in the handset.
d) Faulty electrical socket while charging could damage the handset.
e) Electrical spikes/ surge from Electricity Board, Thunder and Lighting during rain could damage the handset.
f) Unauthorized repairs on the handset could lead to damage.
g) Handset is left charging in the socket even after 100% charging, could lead to damage in the battery.
h) Damaged battery could lead to overheating, swelling and then burning.
i) Multiple times removal of battery could damage it, leading to shorting and then burning.
j) The aged phone/ battery might get bent due to sitting posture while driving and keeping the phone in the pant pocket could lead to short circuit in battery terminals as the phone is a phablet sized one.
k) Any mishandling/ accident to the handset could cause internal damage/ dislocation of the battery, resulting in battery sparking/ heating/ burning.
l) Handset is used for Call (incoming/ outgoing) while charging could be dangerous due to increased radiation and potential for explosion or electrocution.
It is re-iterated that the handset/ battery had no quality issues/ manufacturing defects and said incident could have occurred solely due to the reasons stated above, which are purely beyond reasonable control of answering op. Further, the said incident could have occurred solely due to negligence of complainant and in that situation, the complainant has no coverage under the limited warranty.
5. By way of evidence, complainant produced his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, copy of bill Ex.CW2/A. On the other hand, op no.1 produced his affidavit Ex.R1. OP no.3 produced affidavit Ex.R2.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully.
7. There is nothing on file to suggest that battery of the mobile in question burnt due to any manufacturing defect in the mobile handset. The op no.3 i.e. manufacturer of mobile in question has given various aspects as detailed above in its written statement in which the battery/ handset could be burnt. According to op no.3, the handset/ battery had no quality issues/ manufacturing defects and said incident could have occurred solely due to the reasons stated above. The complainant has not led any reliable and cogent evidence by way of any expert opinion that battery of the mobile set in question was not burnt due to any of above given aspects and burnt only due to manufacturing defect in the mobile. In these circumstances, complainant is not entitled to any relief.
8. Resultantly, this complaint is hereby dismissed but with no order as to costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated: 28.2.2017. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
Member.
