Haryana

StateCommission

A/559/2019

RAJ KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

RAVINDRA MUSIC MOBILE AND ANOTHER - Opp.Party(s)

BALDEV SINGH

11 Sep 2024

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

First Appeal No.559 of 2019

                   Date of Institution:04.06.2019

Date of Decision:11.09.2024

 

Raj Kumar aged about 57 years S/o Sh.Soran Lal, R/o Village Kartarpur, Post Office Alahar, Tehsil Radaur, District Yamuna Nagar.

 

..…Appellant

Versus

 

 

1.      Ravindera Music Mobile, Shop No.3-4, Parshuram Chowk, Model Town, Yamuna Nagar, Tehsil Jagadhri, District  Yamuna Nagar through its authorized signatory.

 

2.      Nokia Care Centre, near Santpura Gurudwara, Model Town, Yamuna Nagar, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar through its authorized signatory.

 

..…Respondents

 

CORAM:   Hon’ble Mr. Justice T.P.S Mann, President.

                   Mr.S.P.Sood, Judicial Member

 

Present:-    Shri  Ravi Kant counsel for the appellant.

                   None for respondent No.1 despite service.

Ms. Nishi Nagpal, counsel for respondent No.2.

 

O R D E R

T.P.S. MANN J.

 

          Complainant-Appellant-Raj Kumar, has filed the instant appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for challenging the order dated 19.04.2019 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri(In short “District Consumer Commission”) whereby complaint filed by himwas dismissed.

2.      The brief facts of the case as set out in the complaint are that the complainant purchased Mobile Model Nokia 2, bearing IMEIno.356042080166889 for a sum of Rs.7,000/-. OP No.1 issued bill No.6550 dated 03.06.2018 to the complainant and further gave warranty of one year.  He started using the mobile, but complainant  was surprised to know that battery backup of the mobile was very short and complainant has to re-charge the mobile every 2-3 hours.  He approached the OP No.1 and apprised him with regard to the problem in the mobile.  OP No.1 told him that present mobile was smart one and battery backup will increase after some use.   After one month, mobile stopped working  and complainant again approached the OP No.1, who told him that he was not liable for any after sale service or defect in the mobile and asked the complainant to approach Nokia Care i.e. OP No.2.  He approached the OP No.2, who change some part in the mobile and mobile started working. Surprisingly, the OP No.2 refused to  issue any job slip/job card.  After some time when mobile again stopped working, the complainant again approached OP No.2, who kept the mobile for more than one month and when complainant approached the OP No.2, who told him that mobile cannot be repaired because mobile was having manufacturing defect.   OP No.2 issued the job card, wherein it did not mention the actual defect. The mobile sold by the OPs was defective and having manufacturing defect. Thus there was deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

3.      Notice being issued. OP Nos.1 & 2 were proceeded against ex parte.  However, later Smt.Poonam,Advocate was permitted to join further proceedings on behalf of OP No.2.

4.      After hearing both the parties, learned District Consumer Commissiondismissed the complaint vide impugned order dated 19.04.2019.

5.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, complainant-appellant has preferred this appealseeking setting aside of the impugned order.

6.      We have heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel for respondent No.2. With their kind assistance the entire record of appeal and that of complaint alongwith Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-3 wasthoroughly perused andexamined.

7.      Learned counsel for the complainant-appellant vehemently argued thaton 03.06.2018, the complainant purchased the Nokia mobile for a sum of Rs.7,000/- from the opposite party No.1-respondent No.1 with one year warranty.  Further argued that within six months, the mobile of the complainant stopped working due to manufacturing defect as per Ex.C-3. Learned District Consumer Commission has not passed the reasoned order. The learned District Consumer Commission has failed to appreciate the provisions of Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 as it is settled proposition of law that in case of any technical/mechanical defect is found in any goods which requires expert opinion then in those circumstances the learned District Consumer Commission should have sent the goods/mobile in question for the opinion of expert. There was problem of display light low.  The complainant-appellant further argued that there was a problem of display and not only of battery backup. It is respectfully prayed that the appeal may kindly be accepted and impugned order dated 19.04.2019 passed by the learned district Consumer Commission, may kindly be set aside and the complaint filed by the complainant be allowed as prayed in the complaint with cost.

8.      On the contrary, learned counsel for OP No.2-respondent No.2 vehemently argued that there was no manufacturing defect in the mobile. Further argued that the mobile was stopped working due to display light low and as per customer information slip produced by the complainant dated 14.01.2019,  there was a liquid damage in the mobile, it means that due to water entering in the device,  the liquid damage was done in the mobile. The learned District Consumer Commission has rightly dismissed the complaint of the complainant and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

9.      It is admitted that complainant purchased the nokia mobile phone from the OP No.1 on 03.06.2018.   It is also admitted that OP No.2 was manufacturer of the mobile phone.   It is also admitted that during the warranty period, the mobile stopped working.  Perusal of the file shows that mobile stopped working due to display light low and as per customer information slip submitted by the complainant dated 14.01.2019,  there was a liquid damage in the mobile.It clearly established that due to water enteringin the device, the liquid damage was done in the mobile. There was no fault on the part of the manufacturing company i.e. OP No.2.   The mobile was not having manufacturing defect.  The complainant-appellant should have saved the mobile phone from the water.  If any device, got filled with some water it could damage the liquid damage in the mobile set.In view of the above, the complainant was not entitled for the amount. The learned District Consumer Commission has rightly dismissed the complaint of the complainant. The State Consumer Commission finds no reason or ground to interfere with the order of learned District Consumer Commission. Hence the appeal being devoid of merit stands dismissed.

10.  

11.    A copy of this judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for  perusal of the parties.

12.    File be consigned to record room.

 

11^thSeptember, 2024          S.P.Sood                                                      T.P. S. Mann

                                                Judicial Member                                         President

 

S.K

(Pvt. Secy.)