^{UNIONTERRITORY,CHANDIGARH}

Dr. Surinderpal Singh s/o Sh.Gurdev Singh r/o H.No.1685, Sector 34-D,Chandigarh.

^Versus

1.      Mathura Road,New Delhi110044.

2.      SonyCenterChandigarh.

3.      Chandigarh.

^{.…..Respondents/Opposite Parties} 

BEFORE:

Argued by:                  

PER PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

2.                    In brief, the facts of the case are that on 13.4.2013, the complainant purchased a Sony Xperia Z mobile from opposite party No.1, for a sum of Rs.38  The complainant immediately approached opposite party No.2 on 17.4.2013 which retained the mobile set with it, and asked him to come after three days.   The complainant also exchanged emails (C-5 to C-8) with the company/opposite parties in this regard. It was further stated that after lot of efforts, he was issued job card on 25.4.2013 which was back dated as 17.4.2013, but the same did not bear his  

3.                    In its written reply, Opposite Party No.1 admitted that the complainant purchased the mobile set, in question, and that it carried one year warranty, subject to its terms and conditions.    

4.                    Opposite Parties No.2 & 3, were duly served, but were not present. Accordingly, they were proceeded against exparte, vide order dated 18.09.2013.

5.                    After hearing the Counsel for the complainant, and Opposite Party No.1, and, on going through the evidence and record of the case, the District Forum, dismissed the complaint. 

6.                    Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/complainant.

7.                    We have heard the Counsel for the appellant/complainant, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully. 

8.                    The Counsel for the appellant/complainant submitted that the District Forum erred in dismissing the complaint. He further submitted that the specific allegations were levelled against Opposite Parties No.2 and 3, with regard to the receipt of handset, with manufacturing defect, in its functioning and the same was handed over to Opposite Party No.2 i.e. dealer from which the same was purchased.

9.                    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 17.04.2013, 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.

“This 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. 

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.  

11.                  For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum is upheld.

12.                  Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

13.                  The file

Pronounced.

05.03.2014