Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/757/2014

Naveen Singh Panwar - Complainant(s)

Versus

LG Mobile Service Centre - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

04 Sep 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/757/2014
Date  of  Institution	:	19/11/2014
Date   of   Decision	:	04/09/2015

 

 

 

 

 

Naveen Singh Panwar son of Sh. Satya Narayan Singh Panwar, resident of House No.361, 1^st Floor, Sector 11, Panchkula.

….Complainant

Vs.

 

1.   LG Mobile Service Centre, SCO 495-496, Sector 35-C, Chandigarh, through its Manager.

 

2.   Google India Pvt. Limited, Unitech Signature Tower-II, Tower-B, Sector-15, Part-II, Village Silokhera, Gurgaon – 122001, through its Manager.

 

3.   LG Electronics, Regional Office, SCO 142-143, III Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh, through its Manager.

 

4.   Chawla Brothers, SCO 1035, Sector 22-B (Opposite Bus Stand), Chandigarh, through its Proprietor.

 

…… Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:   SH. P.L. AHUJA               PRESIDENT

MRS.SURJEET KAUR             MEMBER

          SH. SURESH KUMAR SARDANA     MEMBER

 

For Complainant	:	Complainant in person.
For OP Nos.1, 3 & 4	:	Sh. Chand Deep Jindal, Advocate.
For OP No.2	:	Sh. Ajay Chauhan, Advocate.

 

PER SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, MEMBER

 

 

 

          In brief, the Complainant, who is a practicing Advocate, had purchased a Google (LG) Nexus 5 D821=32GB mobile handset from Opposite Party No.4 for Rs.33,990/- vide bill dated 27.01.2014 (Annexure C-1), with one year warranty. In Sept.2014 the aforesaid mobile handset stopped working and stopped displaying anything on the screen. Accordingly, it was taken to Opposite Party No.1, whose Engineer declared the handset dead being water logged and gave an estimate of Rs.19,000/- for its repair, for which the Complainant agreed to under protest. Copy of the job sheet dated 18.9.2014 is annexed as Annexure C-2. Eventually, the Complainant got served a legal notice dated 24.09.2014 upon the Opposite Parties, but of no use (Annexure C-3). When all the frantic efforts made by the Complainant, failed to fructify, as a measure of last resort, alleging that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties tantamount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the Complainant has filed the instant Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, seeking various reliefs. 

  

2.     Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Party, seeking its version of the case.

 

3.     Opposite Parties No.1, 3 & 4 in their joint written statement while admitting the factual aspects of the case, have pleaded that when the Complainant visited the Opposite Parties, the mobile handset in question was dead due to water logged, which fact was also informed to the Complainant by their Engineer. It has been further pleaded that the water seepage/logged is not covered under the warranty and this fact was also mentioned in the job-sheet dated 18.9.2014 (Warranty Card Annexure R-1). It has been also pleaded that the Complainant refused to get repaired the mobile handset in question on chargeable basis and also did not come back to receive the mobile phone. Denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service on their part, answering Opposite Parties have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

4.     Opposite Party No.2 in its written statement has pleaded that the transaction has taken place between the Complainant and Opposite Parties No.1, 3 & 4 and that answering Opposite Party has no role to play in the manufacture, maintenance or control of any of the Nexus devices or in the provision of the services of repair/ replacement/ manufacture or warranties on any mobile handsets whatsoever. Denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service on its part, answering Opposite Party has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

5.     Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record in support of their contentions.

 

6.     We have heard the Complainant in person and learned Counsel for Opposite Parties No.1, 3 & 4 and have perused the record along with the written arguments filed on behalf of Complainant as well as Opposite Parties No.1, 3 & 4 and Opposite Party No.2. 

 

7.     From the job-sheet dated 18-09-2014 (Annexure C-2), it is found that the mobile was ‘dead water logged’. We have perused the terms of warranty (Annexure R-1). The condition No.4 of the same is reproduced hereinbelow: -

 

“4.  Damage resulting from misuse, abuse (viz., spurious/ fake accessories liquid spillage, scratches on screen, forcible attachment into USB port resulting in damage of pins, using liquids or non-recommended cleaners on screen etc.), improper installation, repair or maintenance. Improper repair include use of parts not approved or specified by LGEIL.”

 

8.     Since the mobile was water logged, and the repairs to water logged handset is not covered in the terms of warranty as per Clause 4, the Opposite Parties were right in charging for the repairs to mobile being outside the warranty clause. Hence, it is safe to conclude that there is no deficiency in service on the part of any of the Opposite Parties.

 

9.     Henceforth, judged from every angle and in view of the foregoings, we have no hesitation to conclude that the complainant has not been able to prove his case of alleged deficiency on the part of Opposite Parties. Rather, the Opposite Parties have succeeded in proving their defence. Therefore, we do not find any merit, weight and substance in the present complaint. Thus, the same is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. 

 

10.     The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

04^th September, 2015                                

Sd/-

(P.L. AHUJA)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(SURJEET KAUR)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)

MEMBER

 “Dutt”