MS. NIPUR CHANDNA, MEMBER

ORDER

18.03.2024

1.         A complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act filed. In brief the facts are that complainant purchased Intex mobile phone on 29.12.2015 for a sum of Rs. 6,200/- with one year warranty from OP-1. It is further  alleged by the complainant that on the very next day of the purchase the mobile in question was having the heating problem, low battery storage etc. Complainant contacted OP-3 on various occasions and finally deposited the hand phone in question with OP-3 on 03.03.2016 with the complaint of battery fault and touch loose.  The OP-3 neither repaired the phone nor had replaced and even had not refunded the cost of the mobile to the complainant. Being aggrieved by the conduct of the OPs complainant approached this Commission for redressal of her grievance.

2.         Notice of the complaint was sent to all the OPs. Despite service none appeared on behalf of OP-1 as such OP-1 is ordered to be proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 23.08.2016. Despite opportunity none appeared on behalf of OP-3. OP-2 filed its written statement denying the allegations made in the complaint and requested for the dismissal of the complaint being frivolous one.

3.         Complainant filed her evidence by way of affidavit where she has corroborated the contents of her complaint.

4.         Complainant filed written arguments. Despite opportunities neither OP-1 filed its evidence nor written arguments.

5.         We have heard the arguments advance at the bar by complainant and have perused the record. Despite opportunities none appeared on behalf of OPs for addressing arguments. Complainant has placed on record the copy of invoice as well as the service request form in  support of her contention.

6.         The complainant has averred in her complaint that from the very next day of the purchase the hand set is having the issue of heating problem, low battery storage etc but has failed to place on record any documentary evidence in respect to the same. The complainant has placed on record the service request form dated 03.03.2016 which clearly shows that for the first time complainant approached OP-3 in respect to the defects in the handset in question.We have carefully gone through the service request form and found that the complainant approached OP-3 with the complaint of battery faulty and touch loose . After inspecting the handset in question the engineer of OP-3 remarks that the aforesaid fault occurred in the handset due to water logging and as per the warranty terms and conditions the OP-3 refused to repair the handset under warranty because there is a water logging in the handset due to which warranty stands void. Complainant failed to place on record any documentary evidence which establish that the handset in question  is not having the water logging issue and her claim was squarely covered under the warranty terms and conditions.

7.         In view of the above discussion we are of the considered opinion that complainant failed to establish case of deficiency in service against OPs. We therefore find no merit in complaint, same is hereby dismissed.

File be consigned to record room.

8.       Copy of the order be given to the parties free of cost as per order dated 04.04.2022 of Hon’ble State Commission after receiving the application from the parties in the registry. Order be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in.

Announced in open Commission on   18.03.2024.

SANJAY KUMAR                 NIPUR CHANDNA                       RAJESH

                PRESIDENT                                   MEMBER                         MEMBER