V.K. JAIN, J. (ORAL) 1. The petitioner before this Commission purchased a Sony Xperia Z mobile from Sony India Pvt. Ltd. through its center in Sector 35B of Chandigarh. The mobile telephone went out of order after about 2-3 days of its purchase. According to the complainant, the defect was noticed in its speaker and, therefore, he approached the Sony Center in Sector 35 B of Chandigarh for rectification of the defect. However, the Sony Center, did not issue any job card and did not rectify the defect. The petitioner, thereafter, approached the opposite party No.3-Modern AKM Electronics Pvt. Ltd., authorized service center for Sony Mobile phones in Sector 34A of Chandigarh. According to the petitioner, the defect was not rectified even by the opposite party No.3 and the mobile phone was returned to him unrepaired on the ground of iquid damage This is also the case of the petitioner that a job card prepared on 25-04-2013 but back dated as 17-04-2013 was handed over to him when the unrepaired mobile phone was returned on 25-04-2013. Alleging unfair trade practice and deficiency in rendering service, the petitioner filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, UT Chandigarh. Vide order dated 16-01-2014, the complaint was dismissed by the said Forum holding as under: . Annexure C-5 is copy of email dated 4-5-2013 whereby he lodged complaint regarding the mobile set in question. Though he mentions in his email regarding handing over the set to the shopkeeper, however, surprisingly there is no mention in this email that firstly no job card was prepared when he gave the set for repair; secondly that the job card was finally prepared in the back date and that the same was handed over to him on 25-4-2013 only; and thirdly that even the said job card does not bear his signature. These all are very vital points upon which the case of the complainant hinges. The onus to prove the allegations levelled in the complaint lies upon the complainant himself, but he has failed to prove the same. Rather, the evidence adduced by him goes against his own case. 8. The Ld. Counsel for the complainant has not been able to draw our attention to any clause as per which the opposite parties were still liable to repair the handset. In such circumstances we have to believe the version of the opposite parties that there was ingress of liquid and as per clause 3, the warranty did not cover any damage resulting from liquid. 2. Being aggrieved from the order of the aforesaid forum, the petitioner approached the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, at Chandigarh. Vide impugned order dated 5-03-2014, the said Commission dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner holding inter alia as under: . After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, raised by the counsel for the appellant/complainant, and the evidence, on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be dismissed at the preliminary hearing, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. Though the complainant denied his signatures, on the job card dated 17-4-2013, Annexure C-9, which according to him, was issued to him on 25-04-2013 only, we are of the considered opinion that his own evidence did not support his case. A perusal of Annexure C-5 i.e. copy of the email dated 4-5-2013 through which the complainant lodged the complaint, regarding the mobile set, showed that he mentioned therein, regarding handing over the set to the shopkeeper, but nowhere there was any mention about non-preparation of the job card, when he gave the same for repairs, as also that the job card was prepared, in the back date, and the same was handed over to him on 25-04-2013 only. The complainant also did not mention in the said email, that the said job card, did not bear his signatures. Hence, the complainant miserably failed to discharge the onus to prove the averments, made in the complaint. On the other hand, the stand of the opposite party was that, as per clause 3 of the warranty terms and conditions, the hand set was not covered for repairs, which reads as under: his warranty does not cover any failure of the product due to normal wear and tear, or due to misuse, including but not limited to use in other than the normal customary manner, in accordance with the instructions for use and maintenance of the product. Nor does this warranty cover any failure of the product due to accident, modification or adjustment, acts of God or damage resulting from liquid. 10. The complainant has not been able to draw our attention, to any clause of the warranty terms and conditions, as per which the opposite parties were still liable to repair the hand set. As per the warranty terms and conditions, the warranty did not cover any damage resulting from liquid. In view of the above facts, the order passed by the District Forum, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence and law, on the point, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in fact there was no liquid damage in the mobile phone and no job card was opened by the opposite party No.3 on 17-04-2013. He also submits that the job card available on page 33 of the paper book does not bear signatures of the petitioner. We, however, are unable to accept the contention advanced by the learned counsel. This is petitioner own case that the aforesaid job card was handed over to him on 25-04-2013 when the phone was returned unrepaired. Had the job card been back-dated as is now claimed by the petitioner he would certainly have protested by that very time and insisted upon a correct date being put on the said card. Therefore, we cannot accept that no job card was opened on 17-04-2013. 4. As regards the purported signature of the petitioner on the job card, admittedly there was no protest from him when the card was handed over to him alongwith mobile phone. If the job card handed over to him did not bear his signatures, the petitioner would certainly have protested and asked the opposite party No.3 as to who had put signatures at the place meant for the signature of the customer on the job card. That having not been done, we cannot accept the contention that the job card does not bear his signatures. 5. The defect noted in the job card was iquid damage As noted earlier, the job card was sent to the petitioner. If there was no liquid damage, the petitioner would not have signed the job card which indicated liquid damage as the defect in the mobile phone. The failure of the petitioner to protest against because the defect noted in the job card clearly indicates that he had accepted the diagnosis made by the opposite party No.3 and in fact the mobile phone suffered liquid damage. 6. For the reasons stated hereinabove we find no ground to interfere with the concurrent finding of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum as well as the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The revision petition has no merit and is, therefore, dismissed.