STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

Vinay Shah,S/o Sh.Shankar Lal Shah,  R/o H. No. 1410, Sector 22-D, Chandigarh.

…..Appellant/complainant

                           V E R S U S

1.  The Anmol Watches and Electronics (P) Ltd., S.C.O. No. 1043, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh.

2.  The Anmol Watches and Electronics (P) Ltd., REGD. OFF. SCO. 1012-13, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh.

3.  The Sony Ericson service and repairing centre, S.C.O. No. 23, Sector 18-D, Chandigarh.

                                  ……Respondents/OPs

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE:    MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT.

                   MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.

Argued by:  None for the appellant.

              Respondents’ ex-parte.

PER  JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT

1.               This appeal is directed against the order dated 20.08.2010, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which it dismissed the complaint, filed by the complainant, (now appellant).

2.               The facts, in brief, are that, the complainant purchased a Sony Ericson Future Black, mobile set for Rs.10,000/-, from OP-1, on 08.07.2009, which carried a warranty of one year. After three months of its purchase, the said mobile set started giving problems, and, it stopped working.  In January, 2010, the matter was reported to OP-1, upon which the said mobile set was sent to OP-3 (service centre of the OP-1), for repairs. OP-3, demanded Rs.6,000/-, towards the replacement of the defective Mother Board, of the said mobile set, being the same under warranty period. It was stated that the mobile set was still not working and was kept by the complainant with him, without any use. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the OPs, amounted to deficiency, in service, and indulgence into unfair trade practice. A legal notice was sent to the OPs on 25.02.2010, but no response was received from them. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only) was filed.

3.               OP-1 and OP-2, were duly served, but no duly authorized representative was present, on their behalf. Accordingly, they were proceeded against ex-parte.

4.               In the written reply, OP-3, admitted the factual matrix of the case. It was stated that, on 21.01.2010, the complainant approached them for keypad, network and charging problems, in the said mobile set. It was further stated that the said defects seemed to have occurred, due to water spillage.  It was further stated that on proper diagnosis, and test, it was found that the mobile set, contained liquid damage inside, due to water spillage. Intimation, in this regard, was given to the complainant, and the defect was also shown to the complainant. It was further stated that the said defects, as per the warranty terms and conditions, of Sony Ericson, constituted a physical damage and could not be repaired, under free warranty repair services. It was further stated that the complainant, was requested to approve the estimate of Rs.6,000/-, to get the said mobile set repaired, but he did not agree.  It was further stated that, under these circumstances, the OPs, were neither deficient, in rendering service, nor indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.

5.               The complainant, as well as, OP-3 led evidence, in support of their case.

6.               After hearing the Counsel for the complainant, as well as, the Engineer/Representative of OP-3, and, on going through the evidence, and record, the District Forum, came to the conclusion, that since, the defect, which occurred in the mobile hand set, did not fall within the repairs, under free warranty repair services, there was no deficiency, in service, on the part of the OPs, nor did they indulge into unfair trade practice, and, as such, the complainant was not entitled to any amount/compensation. Ultimately, the complaint was dismissed by the District Forum.

7.               Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, was filed by the appellant/complainant.  

8.               Respondents no.1, 2 and 3, were duly served, but no duly authorized representative, put in appearance, on their behalf. Accordingly, they were proceeded against ex-parte.

9.               On 30.08.2011, the appeal was fixed for arguments but none, put in appearance, on behalf of the appellant even. Even, on 02.06.2011, none put in appearance, on behalf of the appellant, nor was any intimation sent regarding his non-appearance. Accordingly, this Commission, was of the considered view, that the appeal should be decided on merits, after going through the record of the District Forum, evidence produced by the parties, and the impugned order.

10.            We have gone through the record of the District Forum, evidence produced by the parties, and the impugned order of the District Forum, very carefully.

11.            There is, no dispute, about the factum, that the mobile set aforesaid, was purchased by the complainant from OP-1. It is hardly disputed, that after about three months of the purchase of mobile set, it started giving problems, and when it was sent for repairs to OP-3(service centre of the OP-1), it was found, that the damage had occurred to it, on account of spillage of water. In other words, it was found that the mobile set contained liquid inside, due to water spillage. The complainant admitted in para no.5 of the complaint, as well as, in the legal notice dated 25.02.2010, that he was told by the agent of OP-3, that since the defect occurred, on account of water spillage, which was the cause of damage to the mobile set, it could not be repaired,  under the  terms and

conditions of free warranty services and he also admitted that  he was told to spend Rs.6,000/-, for repair but he did not agree to the same and took back the said mobile set without repairs. The OPs, could only repair the mobile set, during the warranty period, in pursuance of the terms and conditions of the warranty. They could not go beyond the terms and conditions of the warranty. The damage, which was caused to the mobile set, on account of water spillage, did not fall within the terms and conditions of the warranty, and, as such, it could not be repaired, under the free warranty services Clause. No evidence, in rebuttal, was produced by the complainant, to prove that the problems, in the said mobile set were not caused, due to water spillage; and that the liquid damage did not constitute physical damage. The District Forum was, thus, right in holding that there was neither any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the OPs nor they indulged into unfair trade practice. The findings of the District Forum, being correct, are affirmed.

12.            In view of the above discussion, it is held that the order of the District Forum, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission. 

13.            For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, with no order as to costs.

14.            Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

Pronounced.                                                   

September 1^st, 2011

Sd/-

 [JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER]

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

 [NEENA SANDHU]

MEMBER

Rg