IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM
Dated this the 31st day of July, 2023
Present: Sri.Manulal.V.S, President
Smt.Bindhu.R, Member
Sri.K.M.Anto, Member
CC No. 209/2021 (Filed on 18/09/2021)
Complainant : C.A. Jose,
Chengazhathu House,
Cannacikadu P.O.
Kottayam.
(Adv. K. Ubaideth)
Vs.
Opposite parties : 1. Oxygen the Digital Shop,
Nagampadam,
Kottayam
(Adv. Amala Prasad)
2. Unicom Mobiles Private Ltd.
Building No.67/6446 A
Banerji Road,
Near High Court of Kerala,
Kochi – 682031
3. Oppo Electronics Kerala,
Building No.67/6446 A,
Banerji Road,
Near High Court of Kerala,
Kochi – 682031
(Adv. Alex Abraham and
Adv. Ajaykumar K.G.)
O R D E R
Smt.Bindhu.R, Member
The gist of the complainant’s case is that he had purchased an OPPO F15 Unicorn white smart phone from the 1st opposite party on 26-08-2020 for Rs.16,990/- with a one year warranty given by the 3rd opposite party manufacturer. On 15-07-21 the said mobile phone was not working properly and the display had some issues. On 9-08-21 the phone was given for repair by a colleague of the complainant with the 2nd opposite party and they found the defect as display broken. The 2nd opposite party demanded the payment of Rs.4000/- towards the repair charges and the complainant paid Rs.1000/- as advance. After that when the complainant called the officials of the 2nd opposite party and told them that the phone was under warranty period and hence they should do the service free of cost. The opposite party was not ready to give warranty and hence this complaint is filed for compensation for the shortcoming inadequacy and imperfection in the quality of service that shall be maintained by a service provider. The reliefs sought for are the repair of the phone at free of cost, repayment of Rs.1000/- and a compensation of Rs.25000/- along with Rs.10,000/- as cost.
Upon notice,1st and 3rd opposite parties represented and due to the non appearance of opposite party 2, opposite party 2 was set exparte.
The 1st and 3rd opposite parties filed version separately.
The version of the 1st opposite party comprises the contentions that the 1st opposite party is merely a dealer of various manufacturers and so the burden of warranty of the subject product fully and absolutely vests upon the manufacturer. At the time of the subject mobile phone by the complainant, it had no damages and was in a perfect working condition. The complainant bought the same after fully convinced about the functioning of the smart phone. The complainant was informed that the product under warranty would not get the warranty if it was repaired by unauthorised service centres, when the warranty get cancelled. All through the complaint there is no allegation raised against the 1st opposite party and the subsequent communications and transaction between the complainant and the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties are unknown to the 1st opposite party . Hence the complaint is to be dismissed.
The 3rd opposite party filed version through the authorised officer contending that it is one of the leading mobile manufacturing companies. The mobile phones are small electronic devices with various components which require careful maintenance. The 3rd opposite party provides 1 year manufacturing warranty to all the mobile handsets manufactured by it through its authorised service centres subject to the terms and conditions mentioned in its warranty policy for mobile handsets. The complainant has no case that the mobile phone had complaints from the date of purchase itself. The colleague of the complainant who took the phone to the 2nd opposite party was instructed that the display had been damaged due to wear and tear and rough usage which might have occurred due to the hand set falling from heights or due to any other physical damage. He was informed that the same would cost around Rs.4000/-. Accepting the same he had paid Rs.1000/- as advance. The complainant was informed that the damages caused due to wear and tear would not be covered under warranty. The complainant has misrepresented and suppressed material facts and there is no material to show that there was any deficiency in service from the part of the 2nd or 3rd opposite parties. The complaint was filed only after 11 months after purchase of the subject mobile and in the complaint no specific issues have been pointed out. After giving consent for a paid repair by paying the advance amount, the complainant has filed this complaint as an after thought. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
Towards the evidence part, the complainant has filed evidence affidavit along with 4 documents which were marked as Exhibits A1 to A4. Complainant was examined as PW1 by the 3rd opposite party. Adv. Ponnu.S has also filed proof affidavit as a witness from the part of the complainant. The 1st opposite party has filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination but no documentary evidence. Opposite party 3 has not adduced any evidence.
Considering the above stated facts and evidence we frame the following issues:
- Whether the complainant has established his case that there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?
- If so is the complainant eligible for the reliefs sought for?
Issue No.1 and 2
The complainant’s case in a nutshell is that the mobile phone purchased by him from the 1st opposite party became defective –display complaint – and entrusted with the 2nd opposite party for repair under warranty who demanded a payment of Rs.4000/-. The person who took the phone to the 2nd opposite party has paid Rs.1000 as advance and hence the complainant filed the complaint for compensation. The opposite parties contested the matter raising the contention that the display of the phone was broken and so it was confirmed that the breakage was caused due to physical damage. Physical damages are not covered under the warranty and hence the opposite party demanded payment for the service. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.
Exhibit A1 is the invoice and A2is the warranty card. Exhibit A3 is the job card issued by the 2nd opposite party in which the problem description is shown as “Display Broken”. In the remarks column it is recorded as “display broken, found middle frame damaged, unable to take software version”.
In A2 warranty card, “II Warranty instruction and condition
F :Natural wear and tear of the product (Such as casing, keypad, display screen, antenna and other accessories)
Opposite party 3 have found that the complaint of the mobile phone is display broken which might have caused due to improper usage of the phone. The physical damage is clearly excluded from the warranty coverage also. Though the opposite party have taken such a contention that the damage caused is due to some physical reasons, the complainant has failed to rebut this by adducing cogent evidence to prove that the damage was caused due to any inherent defect of the mobile. Moreover, there is no specific pleading in the complaint also about the damage of the mobile phone. It is stated vaguely that there was some display issue. So in the absence of sufficient pleading and evidence, we are of the view that any shortcoming inadequacy and imperfection in the quality of service of the opposite parties has not been established and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
The complaint is dismissed.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 31st day of July, 2023
Smt. Bindhu.R, Member Sd/-
Sri. Manulal.V.S, President Sd/-
Sri. K.M.Anto, Member Sd/-
Appendix
Witness from the side of complainant
Pw1 –C.A. Jose
Exhibits marked from the side of complainant
A1 – Invoice dtd.26-08-20 issued by 1st opposite party
A2 – Warranty card issued by 3rd opposite party
A3- Job card for 3rd opposite party
A4- Advance cash receipt voucher dtd,09-08-21
Exhibits marked from the side of opposite party
Nil
By Order
Assistant Registrar
