Order No.  10  dt.  16/08/2017

            The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant purchased one mobile set One Plus One (Sandstone Black) 64 GB model on 16/08/2015 from the o.p. 2 at a price of Rs. 20,998/-. Within the warranty period of one year the mobile set had some defects for which the complainant contacted the o.p. 3, Service Centre to remove the defects in the mobile set. After inspection of the mobile set the complainant was asked to visit 3 days thereafter. The complainant after receiving the mobile set noticed that the defect was not cured for which the complainant suffered. On the basis of the said fact the complainant filed the case praying for refund of the price of the said mobile set and compensation of Rs. 50,000/- as well as litigation cost of Rs. 15,000/-.

            The o.p.s did not contest the case as such the case has been proceeded ex-parte against the o.p.s.

            The complainant in order to prove the case filed the evidence on affidavit wherein she stated that she purchased online in respect of the said mobile set. In order to prove the fact that she purchased the mobile set manufactured by the o.p. 1 through online purchase produced the documents wherefrom it is evident that she purchased the mobile phone at a price of Rs. 20,998/-. It is also an admitted fact that immediately after the purchase she noticed some defects and contacted the o.p. 3. The o.p. 3, service centre examined the mobile set and found that there was some defects and the mobile had the automatic shut down problem. It appears that the complainant went to service centre just before the date of completion of warranty period and the defect was removed and replacement was made by providing main board. Subsequently after the warranty period the complainant visited the service centre and it was found that there was no defect at all. The complainant though claimed that the mobile set had the defect during the warranty period no document has been produced by the complainant to prove the said fact. The complainant did not ask for the appointment of an expert to examine the said mobile set to ascertain the defect as alleged by the complainant. Since from the materials on record it is found that the problem that has been alleged by the complainant arose after the warranty period and the complainant failed to produce any expert’s opinion to detect the defect in the said mobile set we hold that the complainant has failed to prove the case against the manufacturer regarding the manufacturing defect in the said mobile set. In this respect we can rely on the decision as reported in 2017(1) CPR 643 (NC) wherein it was held by Hon’ble NCDRC that no expert opinion regarding defects in mobile has been placed by complainant on record – job card reveals that there was display problem which occurred after more than 6 months. This problems can arise while regular use of mobile, it cannot be said that there was any manufacturing defect particularly in absence of expert opinion. Manufacturing defect must be proved by expert opinion. On the basis of the fact we hold that the complainant will not be entitled to get relief as prayed for.

            Hence,

            ordered,

            that the case no. 454/2016 is dismissed ex-parte against the o.p.s without cost.

            Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.