ORDER

SH. RAJESH, MEMBER

1. Present complainant has been filed by complainant against Opposite Parties seeking a direction of refund of Rs. 10,000/- being cost of mobile phone along with cost and compensation to  Opposite Parties.
2. The case of the complainant is that on 07.10.2012 he purchased a Mobile Phone costing Rs.10,000/- (Ten Thousand Only) Model No. 3758 of BlackBerry Brand from Vaishno Electronics Ltd. Pvt. Delhi. Same being under warranty was sent to OP 5 on 15.03.2013 for repair on account of defect in reading the memory card and low battery backup, but they refused to take the set saying that they are not authorised to look into the errors related to battery of the Blackberry phone and thus gave the address of OP No 3 in Nehru Place.
3. It is stated by the complainant that the mobile phone was taken to OP 3 owned/Supported by OP2. They took the phone same was checked by them and a service Jobsheet with Jobsheet no. 8001014742 was generated and a copy of the same was issued to the complainant.
4. It is stated by the complainant that after checking the phone by OP3 they mentioned the same problem of not reading memory card and the low battery backup on the Jobsheet no. 8001014742. That OP 3 returned the battery, back cover and memory card to the complainant. They also mentioned the return date as 28.03.2013 on the Jobsheet.
5. It is stated by the complainant that as the Complainant's residence is very far from the service centre (OP3) and as he didn't got any information regarding the handset, the complainant start calling the phone no. 40630234 mentioned on the Jobsheet, but this phone is always no reply or engaged. No answered.  
6. It is stated by the complainant that finally on 8.4.2013, the complainant sent a mail On mail id: rimdelhil@hcl.com which Was mentioned on the Jobsheet, but to the shock and surprise of the complainant the mail got bounced saying that mail cannot be delivered as if this mail id don't exists.
7. It is stated by the complainant that he tried to find the address and phone numbers of Blackberry India, but their website doesn' have any address Or email id of same. That after detail search found one mail ID TSSAsiaPac@rim. com mentioned on Blackberry (OP 1) qlobal website. It is stated that he wrote the his grievance at mail id. TSSAsiaPac@rim.com but instead of getting a solution of the problem, he was given another email india.support@blackberry.com to be contacted.  It is stated that due to this reason complainant felt cheated. Thereafter he wrote several e-mails on this new E mail ID mails however no he got no suitable response. It is stated by the complainant that even their Toll free no. 18004253720 as mentioned on. Various Consumer friendly website is also not working.
8. It is stated that the complainant sent a mail on mail id: rimdelhil@hcl.com which was mentioned on the Jobsheet, but the mail bounced back saying that mail cannot be delivered as if this mail id don't exists.
9. It is stated that at last on 16.04.2014, the complainant got a call from OP2 HCL customer care from 0120-2406139. He was told that the handset couldn’t be repaired as it was water logged, so he should collect his handset from the service centre. It is stated that complainant was shocked to hear that his phone was in working condition and there was no problem except low battery backup and memory card reading.
10. It is stated that that the complainant sent his man to pick the handset, who was delivered the handset after he was asked to sit in the service centre for nearly 5 hours.
11. It is stated that when the complainant checked his phone he was shocked to see the service job sheet that the LCD screen of the phone was broken. The job sheet depicted that that LCD screen was broken, no where it was mentioned the problem of water logging and also wrote that this is out service Report is of warranty.
12. It is stated that all mails sent to the Blackberry email ID went unanswered or answered irrelevant replies.
13. It is stated that this way the complainant felt cheated and could smell the fraudulent intent of the service centre owned by HCL, the backend team to HCL, the service Blackberry company, Redington and centre owned by them. This clearly shows the fraudulent Centre, Nexus of Service Team of Blackberry and its sales partners in India.
14. It is stated that the complainant sent the Legal notice to All Opposite Parties on 18.4.2013 but all in vain.  
15. That Aggrieved by this action of Blackberry (OP1) and their service centre (OP3) owned by HCL (OP2) complainant has preferred present complaint seeking refund of price of mobile phone with cost and compensation.
16. Notice was issued to Opposite Parties who appeared and filed their respective Written Statement denying allegations made in the complainant.
17. It is stated by the OP1 that the Complainant in the present complaint has arrayed the Opposite Party No. 1 herein as "BlackBerry India", however the correct name of the Opposite Party No. 1 herein is "BlackBerry India Private Limited" and further sought passing of  appropriate order by this Commission.
18. It is further stated by the OP1 and OP2 that the Complainant contacted the Authorized Service Centre of the Opposite Party 1 i.e. OP 2 for the first time on 16.03.2013 with issues "low battery backup, media card unreadable "however, on conducting its physical inspection, scratches and dents on housing and front panel minor of the Device was found broken which was duly shown to the Complainant. It is further stated by the OP1 that fact of rough and rugged use was also admitted by the Complainant and therefore, the same was also recorded in the service job sheet dated 16.03.2013. A service report dated 16.03.2013 is already annexed to the instant complaint filed by the Complainant.
19. It is stated by OP1 and OP2 that the upon inspection of the said Device, it was found that the Device had been damaged due to ingress of liquid clearly evidencing negligence on the part of the Complainant in using the said Device.
20. It is stated by OP1 and OP2 that the fact of liquid ingression was also communicated to the Complainant vide email dated 16.04.2013 however, the Complainant despite his own wrong, addressed number of emails to the Opposite Party 1 with adverse remarks so that the same may be used as a tool for filing the captioned consumer complaint. A copy of the email dated 16.04.2013 is already annexed to the instant complaint filed by the Complainant.  
21. It is stated that Opposite Party 1 and 2 cannot be held liable for any such act which may have been caused due to the mistake of the Complainant himself.
22. It is stated that by OP1 and OP2 that after thorough inspection of the said Device, it was observed that the defect alleged could be caused only due to negligent use, which lead to internal damage. It is stated that the Opposite Parties 1 and 2 cannot have any control over the manner of usage of the Device by the Complainant and the Complainant can in no manner hold the Opposite Party 1 and 2 liable for damage that has been caused to the Device due to negligent use of the same by the Complainant.
23. It is stated by OP1 that the Opposite Party 1 provides warranty services only on products that have an inherent manufacturing fault and not on products that are damaged by way of misuse and the same is clear from a perusal of the terms of the Handheld Limited Warranty (hereinafter referred to as the "Limited Warranty") provided by the Answering Opposite Party.
24. It is stated by OP1 and OP2 that the Complainant herein has though placed on record the number of emails however, has not placed the Limited Warranty terms on record, which misleads this Commission.
25. It s stated by OP1 and OP2 that the Complainant has attempted to mislead this Commission by concealing that on all occasions that the Complainant has approached the Service Centre Opposite Party 2 for repair of the Device, the same could not be repaired since the Device had been damaged by liquid ingression.
26. It is stated by OP1 and OP2 that the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Bharathi Knitting Co. Vs. DHL Worldwide Express Courier Division of Airfreight Ltd. AIR 1996 SC 2508 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission holding that the terms of warranty were binding on the parties and that the liability undertaken in contract between the parties should be limited to the extent undertaken.  
27. It is stated by OP1 and OP2 that the terms of the Limited Warranty clearly states that Opposite Party 2 is required only to provide free of cost repair services on the Black Berry smart phone during the course of the one year warranty period for a valid reason outlined in the Limited Warranty. It is stated that if these conditions are met, the Opposite Party 2 will repair the defective portion of the BlackBerry device with a new or reconditioned part without charge in case of a defect in the part.
28. It is stated by OP1 and OP2 that the alleged claim of the Complainant is baseless. It is stated that the Complainant cannot enrich himself with a claim on which he is otherwise not entitled in any manner.
29. It is stated by OP1 and OP2 that the Complainant herein has failed to annex any expert report as required u/s 13(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which could prove that the damage that has been caused to the Device is a manufacturing defect and the Complaint deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone.
30. It is stated by OP1 and OP2 that there is no cause of action in favor of the Complainant and against the Opposite Party 2 therefore the present Complaint is liable to be dismissed.
31. We have gone through the record the complaint. The complainant has filed a detailed complaint alleging deficiency in services due to failure of the OPs to repair his mobile phone warranty period. However complainant has failed to mark his signature on the complaint.
32. Now the point to be considered is as to whether mere omission to sign the complaint by complainant is such a defect which warrants the dismissal of the complaint or permission can be granted to the complainant to sign the complaint at this stage.
33. Due to inherent defect in the present complaint this commission cannot adjudicate same hence it is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable.
34. Moreover it is also stated by OP1 and OP2 that upon inspection of the said Device, it was found that the Device had been damaged due to ingress of liquid clearly evidencing negligence on the part of the Complainant in using the said Device as such the warranty clause for the said device was violated and OP1 and OP2 were not legally bound to repair the said device and the fact of liquid ingression was also communicated to the Complainant vide email dated 16.04.2013, however, complainant didn’t not make any comment on the same. Apparently the complainant has not refuted this allegation of the  OP1 and OP2 either in his Evidence by way of Affidavit or in Rejoinder to the written statement. Therefore we hold that complainant has violated the terms of warranty clause of the device and therefore OP cannot be held liable for the defect caused due to ingress of liquid.
35. In view of the above submissions and discussions we hold that OPs are not deficiency in rendering after sale service to complainant and hence present complaint is dismissed.

Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost. The orders be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in.File be consigned to Record Room.

Announced in open Commission on this 12^th May, 2023.

(SANJAY KUMAR )                 (NIPUR CHANDNA)                 (RAJESH)

PRESIDENT                              MEMBER                                MEMBER