Jharkhand

Bokaro

CC/155/2019

Mukti Narayan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sheo Pratap Singh New Tech Service Centre - Opp.Party(s)

20 Feb 2023

ORDER

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bokaro

Date of Filing-18-11-2019

Date of final hearing-20-02-2023

 Date of Order-20-02-2023

Case No. 155/2019

Mukti Narayan S/o Sri Kamla Kant Upadhyay

 R/o Camp-2, Qr.no 2A/3, Bokaro

Vs.

1.  Sheo Pratap Singh New Tech Service Centre

   G.C/30, City Centre, Sector-4, Bokaro Steel City

2. MI India Beharabisanahalli, Banglore, 560103, Karnataka

 

 Present:-

                             Shri Jai Prakash Narayan Pandey, President

Shri Bhawani Prasad Lal Das, Member

                  Smt. Baby Kumari, Member

PER- J.P.N Pandey, President

-:Order:-

1. None turned up on behalf of complainant on repeated call. Ld. Counsel for the O.P. No.2 (Manufacturing Company Xiaomi Technology) is present and she files photo copy of warranty paper and argued the case.  It reveals from the record that this case is pending at the stage of argument in which complainant is absent since long therefore, in the given facts as per provision of Section 38 (3) (c) Consumer Protection Act. 2019 case has been taken up for decision on merit on the basis of materials available on record.

 

2. Complainant has filed this case with prayer for direction to O.Ps. to provide his mobile set after complete repair or to provide another mobile set of same price and configuration and to pay Rs. 5000/- as compensation for various types of harassment.
3.  Complainant’s case in brief is that he purchased AR TG Redmi -6 Pro Cell phone on 14.01.2019 having IMEI No. 864914046834955 from O.P. No.1. Further case is that on 09.10.2019 the screen of the cell phone became blur which was provided to service centre but it was not repaired, then notice was served on 16.10.2019 which was not replied. Further case is that complainant was directed to pay the amount related to repair cost causing mental agony and due to act of O.Ps. complainant suffered a lot.
4. On service of notice O.P. No.1 has not appeared nor filed W.S. Hence case is being proceeded Ex-parte against him.
5. O.P. No.2 (Manufacturing Company Xiaomi Technology) appeared and has filed W.S. mentioning therein that it was ascertained by the service centre that the product has suffered liquid damage- damage due to exposure to liquid, in technical term which is called Customer Induced/liquid damage (OOW/CID). Further reply is that said damage is not being covered under the warranty provided by the company to the customers. Hence it is prayed to dismiss the case.
6. Point for consideration is whether complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed ?
7. Purchase of the mobile set by the complainant on 14.01.2019 is not in dispute and problem in the mobile set is also not in dispute. It is also admitted fact that on 10.10.2019 complainant visited the service centre for repair of the mobile set in which display line was missing. Only dispute is that whether the damage occurred to the mobile set is covering under warranty of the company or not?
8. On this aspect mobile warranty policy and conditions have been brought on record and according to condition 5 if cell phone becomes dirty or damaged due to contact with chemical agents, water, sharp objects, improper handling it will not covered the handset. As per annexure-2 of the complaint petition fault was that the display line missing. O.P. has filed inspection sheet annexure –A which shows that product appearance was wear and tear. Annexure- C shows that said fault was due to water damage. In this way it is very much clear from the materials produced in this case that there is sufficient evidence to show that defect occurred in the mobile set was due to water damage hence it is not being covered under the warranty of the product.
9. The technical expert has also inspected and examined the mobile set and has submitted report that it is having external impact applied on and warranty is not covered in this case in which display was found broken, most of the parts have been found rusted. Therefore, as per expert’s opinion also mobile set was found physically damaged and defect found on it is not covering under warranty of the set.
10. In light of above discussion we are of the view that complainant has not proved its case for grant of relief as prayed. Accordingly case is being dismissed on merit with cost.

 

 

(J.P.N. Pandey)

                                                                                      President

 

 

(B.P.L Das)

   Sr. Member

                                                                            

                  

                                                                               (Baby Kumari)

                                                                                       Member