Delhi

North

CC/16/2017

ANKUSH KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

HUAWEI TELECOMMUNICATIONS - Opp.Party(s)

16 Mar 2023

ORDER

       District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I (North District)

[Govt. of NCT of Delhi]

Ground Floor, Court Annexe -2 Building, Tis Hazari Court Complex, Delhi- 110054

 

Consumer Complaint No.: 16/2017

Ankush Kumar

H.No.105, Gali No.8, Shiv Mandir

Wazirabad Delhi-110054                                                          …Complainant

                                                         

                                                          VS

Huawei Telecommunication (I) Pvt. Ltd.

9^th floor, Vishwrop IT Park,

Behind Raghuleela Mall,

Near Vashi Station, Vashi,

Navi Mumbai-400703                                                            …Opposite Party

                            

         

ORDER

16/03/2023

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya, Member:-

          The present complaint has been filed by Sh.Ankush Kumar, the complainant, against Huawei Telecommunication (I) Pvt. Ltd. as Opposite Party(OP).

1. Briefly stated the facts necessary for the disposal of the present complaint are that on 12/08/2015, the complainant purchased Huawei Honor 6 from Flipkart vide Bill No.BLR_WFLD20150800602007, with IMEI No.865520023378996.  The cost of the handset was Rs.15,000/-.
2. It has been stated that handset was replaced on 09/11/2016 as it was under warranty with the product bearing IMEI No.865520020495223. The display and touch of the replaced handset got damaged due to accidental drop of the product.   It has been averred that as the product comes with “Corning Gorilla glass 3” which has some standard of damaged resistance. 
3. The complainant approached the service centre for repair, stating it to be under warranty; the same was refused by the service centre on the pretext that the physical damage cannot be rectified under the warranty. The complainant has alleged that on the basis of ‘Newton’s 2^nd Law’, “Corning Gorilla Glass3”product information sheet it takes more that 15000g load or 150N roughly to initiate radical cracks in the glass.  Whereas, in the case of the complainant the handset  had fallen from the height of 4.5 ft., where the force was only about 5.83 N the said calculation is done
4. Despite several visits and written communication through email, the grievance of the complainant was not addressed. The complainant has stated that he is without smart phone for last two months and therefore, has claimed for replacement of his ‘Honor 6’ device with brand new ‘Honor 8’ device.
5. The complainant has annexed the retail invoice, the service sheet dated 09/12/2016, an email dated 17/12/2016 to 21/12/2016, product information pertaining to ‘Corning Gorilla Glass’ and copy of the warranty period query with the complaint.
6. Notice of the present complaint was issued to OP, thereafter, Written Statement was filed on their behalf.  They have taken several objections in their defence such as present complaint was false and frivolous; the complaint has been filed with malafide intention for financial gain.
7. They have submitted that the initially handset purchased on 12/08/2015, had some network issues due to which it was handed over to the service centre on 20/10/2016 ,same was repaired and returned on 24/10/2016 as it was in warranty period.  However, on 02/11/2016 the complainant again approached the service centre with the same issue.
8. On 09/11/2016, the handset was replaced with the product bearing IMEI No.865520020495223 as a goodwill gesture. It has been submitted that the complainant himself has admitted that the replaced handset was accidently broken due to which the touch and display stopped working. The service centre denied repair of damaged device at free of cost as the physical damage is not cover under the warranty.  They have stated that the General Warranty period is of 12 months; however, on special basis they were providing a warranty of 15 months to its customer who had bought the handset from the online portal ‘Flipkart’. Thus, the extended warranty of 03 months was only on few selected model and for purchase made during selected period. Therefore, the warranty of the handset was for a period of 15 months which expired on 08/11/2016.
9. The device had been damaged due to external factors hence, the same was not covered under warranty.  It has been submitted that in the complaint it has been admitted that the phone fell down from the height 1.34 meter and in email dated 17/12/2017 the height as mentioned is 1.21 meter.  The complainant has been repeatedly informed that the repairs are subject to payment at the service centre.  Rest of the contents of the complaint have been denied, with the prayer for dismissal of the complaint in limine with the cost of Rs.10,000/- in the favour of OP.
10. Rejoinder to the Written Statement was filed by the complainant, where the allegations made in the complaint have been reaffirmed and those of the written statement have been denied.  It has been denied that the warranty on the handset expired on 08/11/2016, in fact, the warranty period was till 06/02/2017. The complainant has further submitted that the initial handset was taken to the service centre for charging issue and not network issue.  The complainant was asked to use a new data cable which was received by him after paying Rs.300/- as the issue was not resolved, the handset to the complainant was replaced and Rs.300/- being the cost of the data cable was refunded.  The complainant has annexed the calculation sheet to show the impact of fall.
11. Evidence by way of affidavit has been filed by both the parties.  Complainant has reiterated the contents of the complaint in his evidence by way of affidavit. 
12.  OP has got examined Sh.Gaurav Arora, Authorised Representative, General Counsel & Company Secretary, Huawei Telecommunication (I) Co. Pvt. Ltd. The contents of the written statement have been repeated. 
13. The matter was listed for final arguments, however, no one has appeared on the behalf of the parties to argue.  We have perused the material placed on record.
14.  The present complaint pertains to the allegation, that the OP did not repair the handset despite the fact that the same was under warranty. To decide the controversy, a look is to be made at the jobsheet dated 09/12/2016, as per which the handset is under warranty. At the same time, under the head important information for customer it is stated:

• Warranty of set/accessories will be withdrawn in case of any damage cost to set/accessories by customer i.e.: the cases like water seepage, physically broken, burnt etc. 

 

15. Thus, it is clear that the warranty stood withdrawn on the handset of the complainant as the same was physically broken.  This fact has been admitted by the complainant himself in the email dated 17/12/2016 and the complaint as well.  If we go through an emails dated 12/12/2016 and 18/12/2016, which has been sent by OP stating that the cost of repairs given by the authorised service centre is genuine and no where they have denied services to the complainant, it is only subject to payment of cost of repairs as the handset was out of warranty due to physical damage.
16. Further, in the same job sheet, against “Remark” it bears REJECT THE ESTIMATE RWR, which means that the estimate given by the service centre was rejected by the complainant and the handset was returned without repair.  Thus, from the above discussion it can be culled that due to physical damage the warranty stood withdrawn. In case the complainant wanted to get his handset repaired, he had to pay the cost of repairs, for which an estimate was given by the service centre and the same was not approved by the complainant.

Therefore, in the facts and circumstance of the present complaint, we hold that there is no deficiency in services on the part of OP, hence the present complaint is dismissed being devoid of merits without orders to cost.

 

(Harpreet Kaur Charya)                      ( Ashwani Kumar Mehta)

                                Member                                            Member

 

 

                                             (Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar)

                                                  President