DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No. 274 of 11.11.2020

                                      Decided on: 23.7.2024

Padamdeep Singh r/o H.No.555, St No.5, Ghuman Nagar, Patiala.

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1. Manshul Telecom, 862, Golgappa Chowk, Tripuri Town, Patiala (Pb) India.
2. Ganesh Electricals , 59, 1^st Floor, New Leela Bhawan, Patiala (Pb.) INDIA

                                                                   …………Opposite Parties

Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act

QUORUM

                                      Ms.Gagandeep Gosal, President

                                      Sh.G.S.Nagi, Member   

ARGUED BY

                                       Sh.Jaspreet Singh, counsel for the complainant.

                                      Opposite parties ex-parte.                                            

 ORDER

                                      G.S.NAGI, MEMBER

1. The instant complaint is filed by Padamdeep Singh (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against Manshul Telecom and another (hereinafter referred to as the OP/s) under the Consumer Protection Act (for short the Act).
2. It is averred in the complaint that the complainant purchased a mobile phone of Samsung company bearing No.SM-B310EZKDINS from OP No.1 on 26.9.2020 for Rs.1700/- paid in cash. That the said phone was not working properly from the date of the purchase and suddenly on 29.9.2020 its display went blank when the complainant kept the mobile in his pocket. Complainant visited OP No.1 who asked the complainant to visit Service Centre of manufacturing company. Complainant visited OP No.2 and told the problem. The Manager of the OP No.2 told that display is broken due to pressure and this fault is not under their warranty. That the display was broken due to over heating which is a manufacturing defect. That the mobile phone sold to the complainant was defective one and was having manufacturing defect and the OPs failed to provide benefit of warranty which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part. Hence this complaint with the prayer to accept the same by giving direction to the OPs to refund the amount of Rs.1700/-price of the mobile; to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs and also to pay Rs.22000/- as cost of litigation.
3. Notice of the complaint was duly served upon the OPs but they failed to appear  and were accordingly proceeded against ex-parte.
4. In evidence complainant has tendered Ex.CA his affidavit alongwith documents Ex.C1 copy of bill, Ex.C2 copy of job sheet, Ex.C3 copy of legal notice, Ex.C4 and Ex.C5 postal receipts and closed the evidence.
5. We have heard the complainant and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
6. The complainant had purchased Samsung mobile phone from OP No.1 vide invoice No.1499 dated 26.9.2020 vide Ex.C1 for a consideration of Rs.1700/-. It is alleged that the phone of the complainant started giving problem and became defective on 29.9.2020 as the display of the phone became blank. The complainant approached OP no.1 who advised him to visit the service centre of the manufacturer for the repair of the handset. As per the advice of OP No.1 complainant visited the authorized service centre of manufacture i.e. OP No.2 on 30.9.2020 as per Ex.C2. However, the handset of the complainant was not repaired on the ground that the display of the phone was broken. The complainant then served a legal notice on 5.10.2020. However, no fruitful action was taken by the OPs. The complainant has prayed for the refund of the amount of purchase alongwith compensation etc.
7. A study of the invoice produced by the complainant proves that the complainant had purchased the new phone from OP No.1 for a consideration of Rs.1700/- as per Ex.C1.The phone of the complainant became defective as the display was blank and complainant reported to OP No.2 for the repair of the said phone on 30.9.2020 i.e. after four days of the purchase of the handset, as per Ex.C2. A study of the service request indicates that the phone was marked as out of warranty and the defect was described as Octa broken (display damaged).
8. The display of the phone was broken and the same was not disputed by the complainant. The complainant in para 6 of the complaint has himself stated that display was broken due to overheating. We are of the opinion that display can be burnt due to overheating and cannot be broken. The display can only be broken due to misuse of the handset. The broken display does not fall under the warranty and as such the complainant was rightly offered repairs on payment basis which was refused by him. As such the complainant has failed to prove his case. We do not find any merit in the complaint and the same is accordingly dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
9.           The instant complaint could not be disposed of within stipulated period due to heavy rush of work and for want of Quorum from long time.
85109252238716.  
85109252238717.  

                                              G.S.Nagi                       Gagandeep Gosal

                                              Member                          President