BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.118 of 2015

Date of Instt. 24.03.2015

Date of Decision :12.08.2015

Kanwar Preet Singh son of Baldev Singh R/o 31, Karol Bagh, Cantt Road, Mithapur, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant Versus

1. Hewlett Packard India Pvt Ltd, 24, Salarpuria Arena, Hosur, Main Road, Adugodi, Banglore through its Manager.

2. Aforeserve Com.Ltd, 682, Basant Vihar Road, Ist Floor, Johal Market, Jalandhar-144003 through its Branch Manager.

3. Mobile Zone Company-1, Bajwa Complex, Model Town Market, Jalandhar City, through its Proprietor.

.........Opposite parties

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Sh.Bipan Modi Adv., counsel for complainant.

Sh.Sanjeev Sharma Adv., counsel for OP No.1.

Opposite parties No.2 & 3 exparte.

Order

J.S.Bhatia (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, against the opposite parties on the averments that the complainant purchased a cell phone/Tab make HP, model Slate-7 Voice Tab, IMEI No.358949055704296, from the opposite party No.3 vide bill No.927, dated 27.5.2014 amounting to Rs.16,400/-. The said cell phone/Tab started giving defect and did not gave proper functioning. The complainant approached the opposite party No.2 which is the service centre of the opposite party No.1. The officials of the opposite party No.2 took the cell phone/Tab of the complainant on 1.11.2014, for repair, but the said cell phone/tab has been returned to the complainant on 5.11.2014, with the remarks "Check Tab back cover and found system board back cover pin damaged". The said cell phone/Tab has not been repaired by the opposite party No.2 nor given any satisfactory reply to the complainant. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite parties either to remove the defect in the cell phone/Tab or to replace it with new one or to refund its price to him. He has also claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

2. Upon notice, opposite party No.1 appeared and filed a written reply, inter-alia, pleading that as per the records maintained by the opposite party No.1 based on the serial number of the tab, it is found that no calls have been lodged to the customer care centre of the opposite party No.1. However, it is learnt that the complainant had reported the issue in the tab to the service centre, that the service centre on inspection of the tab, learnt that the system board pin of unit was damaged. That the issue reported was due to physical damage caused to the system board pin, which can not be supported the standard warranty policy as such the same was informed to the complainant. The said fact proves that the subject tab was working perfectly fine and there were no manufacturing defects, whatsoever as otherwise it would have started posing issues from the day of purchase. The opposite party has been prompt and swift to attend to the alleged grievance reported by the complainant as and when reported. Therefore, the prayers as made by the complainant for replace of the tab or refund of the cost of the tab are untenable and unsustainable. However the answering opposite party offers to repair/service the tab on chargeable basis as the issue reported was due to physical damage and not covered under the terms and conditions of the warranty policy. It denied other material averments of the complainant.

3. Opposite parties No.2 and 3 did not appear inspite of notice and as such they were proceeded against exparte.

4. In support of his complaint, learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C6 and closed evidence.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party No.1 has tendered affidavit Ex.OPW1/A alongwith copies of documents Ex.OP1 to Ex.OP3 and closed evidence.

6. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the learned counsels for the present parties.

7. The facts involved in the present case are not much disputed. It is not disputed that the complainant has purchased cell phone/tab vide retail invoice dated 27.5.2014 Ex.C1 from opposite party No.3. According to the complainant, he faced certain problems in working of the cell phone/Tab and he approached the service centre but they refused to repair it. The complainant has himself produced service call report which is Ex.C2. In the column of repair remarks it is mentioned that "Checked Tab back cover and found system board back cover pin damaged". So from the service report Ex.C2 it is evident that it was case of physical damage. Physical damage to the product, is not covered under the terms and conditions of the warranty. So complainant is not entitled to free service. He can get the cell phone/Tab repaired from the service centre on chargeable basis.

8. In view of above discussion, we hold that there is no merit in the present complaint and same is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia

12.08.2015 Member Member President