ORDER                                     Date: 23-01-2017

Vikram Kumar Dabas, Member

1. On 31-10-2014 the complainant had purchased a mobile handset make micromax from OP1 at a cost of Rs. 7000/-. As per the complainant he was told that the mobile handset was warranteed for one year. On 07-12-2014 the mobile handset had stopped working. The complainant visited OP2 the service center of OP3. Despite the fact that the mobile handset was under warranty OP2 told the complainant that he would have to bear the cost of repairs.  The complainant served a notice on the OPs but to no effect. Hence the complaint.
2. The complaint was contested and OP3 filed a written statement. It has claimed that the touch connector of the mobile handset had been broken  which is not covered in the warranty clause accompanying the mobile handset.  Reference has been drawn to clause no. 6 (c ) of the warranty terms and conditions which reads as under:-

6 (c ): Use other than in accordance with the user manual , rough handling , ingression  of /exposure to any kind of liquid (water), sweat , beverages , oils etc), exposure to moisture , dampness or exposure to extreme thermal or environmental conditions, corrosion, oxidation, unauthorized repairs, unauthorized spare parts usage, accidents, forces of nature , or other actions beyond the reasonable control of Micromax unless the defect was caused directly by defects in material or workmanship.

The warranty will also not cover any physical damage to the surface   of the handset including but not limited to cracks or scratches  on the LCD or camera lens.

3. It is stated that since there was a physical damage in the mobile handset it could not be repaired under warranty.  It is stated that there are no merits in the complaint and the same is liable to be dismissed.  It has been prayed accordingly.
4. We have heard arguments advanced at the bar and have perused the record.
5. It is admitted by the complainant that at the time he had visited OP2 the service center of the OP3, a noting had been made by the senior executive on the reverse of the cash memo.  A copy of the said hand note has been placed on record which shows that the customer care center had recorded that the mobile handset was no longer under warranty as its touch connector has been broken. Our attention has been drawn to the warranty terms and conditions specially clause 6 (c ) as reproduced above.  Since the handset had suffered a physical damage and its touch connector had been broken, OP3 was not liable to repair it under warranty.  We, therefore, see no merits in this complaint. The same is hereby dismissed.
6. Copy of the order made available to the parties as per law. File be consigned to record room.

Announced on this _______________.