Heard learned counsel for appellant. None appears for the respondents.
2. This appeal is filed u/s 15 of the erstwhile Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’). Parties to these appeals shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the learned District Forum.
3. The pleadings as available from both the parties is that the complainant has purchased a Samsung Galaxy J6 mobile set from OP No.1 on payment of Rs.16,490/- on 5.7.2018. After two months of its purchase, he found defect in the mobile set and also complained before OP No.2 whodemanded Rs.3,500/- as repairing charges. Complainant denied to pay the repairing charges as it is within warranty period. Thereafter, complainant approached the OPs time and again, but OPs did not listen to his request. Finding no other way, complainant filed the complaint.
4. OP Nos. 1 and 2 did not file written version. So, they were set ex-parte.
5. OP No. 3 filed written version stating that there is no manufacturing defect in the mobile hand set. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.3.
6. Learned District Forum after hearingboth the parties passed the following order:-
“xxxxxxxxx
Hence, it is ordered that, the OP-3 sole liable and he is directed to pay the cost of the mobile handset and to pay compensation of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand) and a cost of Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five thousand) to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order, failing which interest @12% p.a. will be charged on the awarded amount till the date of realization.”
7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that learned District Forum has committed error in law by not considering the written version filed by OP No.3 with proper perspectives. He also submitted the job card to show that the defect is not coverable under the warranty. Therefore, the learned District Forum ought to have considered all these facts while disposing the case. Therefore, he submitted to set aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal.
8. Considered the submission of learned counsel for the appellantand perused the impugned order including the DFR.
9. It appears from the job card that the display of the mobile set was broken which has been estimated for Rs.3,465/-towards repairing charges. Of course, during the warranty period such defect occurred. The warranty produced by learned counsel for the appellant shows that in clause 18 the following defects are not covered under warranty. “First one mishandling/ misuse/ negligence/ tempering, 2nd improper ventilation, 3rd improper voltage, 4th use of external material and 5th physical damage and/or electrical damage caused by physical impact.” Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that last one of clause 18 is applicable to this case. When display is broken it is covered by last one clause. Since the defect was not covered under the warranty, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and is set aside.
10. The appeal stands allowed. No cost.
DFR be sent back forthwith.
Supply free copy of this order to the respective parties or the copy of this order be downloaded from Confonet or Website of this Commission to treat same as copy supplied from this Commission.
