By Smt. Beena. M, Member:

This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986.

2. Complainant’s case in brief is as follows:-  The case of the complainant is that on 03-09-2016 he had purchased a smart phone of the OPPO Mobile company from the 1^st opposite party’s shop by paying an amount of  Rs.18,700/-.  At the time of purchase the dealer, 1^st opposite party given assurance to the complainant that the phone having one year warranty and the screen is of Gorilla Glass type and it is unbreakable and if the screen get damaged or broken the company would provide warranty and the phone would get replaced at the earliest possible state itself. But after few days of purchase the complainant noticed a feather line scratch and the extension of the scratch get increased day by day. The scratch happened within the warranty period. So the complainant approached the 1^st opposite party for curing the defect but he said that they did not provide any warranty service and instructed to approach the 2^nd opposite party, the service centre. But when the complainant approached the 2^nd opposite party he denied to provide warranty service and demanded payment of Rs.6,600/- as cost of the screen replacement.  These acts of the opposite parties are against terms and conditions, default of service and unfair trade practice on their part.   Subsequently the complainant impleaded the 3^rd opposite party, the manufacturer of the defective mobile phone.  The complainant further averred that he is a chronic blood cancer patient and have to regularly  refer/search for medicines from internet and he using the mobile phone for getting regular notifications from his doctor regarding the medications as he has  no other device to get access to the internet.  As the mobile phone screen got defective, the complainant had caused many difficulties and enough damages. Hence the complainant prayed for replacement of the screen free of cost and seeking damages of Rs.50,000/- towards unfair trade practice and default service and Rs. 30,000/- for physical illness and mental agony and Rs.20,000/- towards the wasting his valuable time.         

3. On receiving complaint, notice was properly sent to all the opposite parties and the opposite parties are entered appearance and filed their versions.  The 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties filed common version and 3^rd opposite party filed separate version. The contention of the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties are that the complainant had filed the complaint on an experimental basis and non jointer and misjoinder of parties and not maintainable either on law or on facts.    They further contented that the 2^nd opposite party is only a regional distributor of Oppo Mobiles and never been a service centre and the complainant never approached an authorised service centre or the opposite parties. The opposite parties haven’t given any promise that the screen is unbreakable and the complainant has suppressed the actual incident which allegedly the breaking of glass in phone.  The 3^rd opposite party filed version and admitted the purchase of mobile phone from the 1^st opposite party. Further submitted that the complainant never approached a service center and the 2^nd opposite party is not a service centre. 3^rd opposite party further averred that 3^rd opposite party is responsible for advertisement made by itself and not for any review made by other sources, it is thus for the complainant to prove with evidence that to company itself made/published any advertisement that the said mobile glass is unbreakable. It is very prudent  that  no  such   mobile  phone can be made.   The principal of caveat emptor is applicable in the present case and the complainant has not produced any valid proof to substantiate the case.  The allegation that the 1^st opposite party has made promise and that the phone screen was broken automatically is too improbable and unacceptable.  The disputed phone was broken by falling down.  As per the warranty terms agreed, warranty will be available only for problems mentioned as performance fault and any damages caused by man will not come under warranty terms. No date of event has been mentioned by the complainant.

4. On perusal of complaint versions and documents the Forum raised the following points for consideration:-

   1. Whether the complainant is entitled to get any compensation from the

      opposite parties?.

   2.  Relief and cost.

5. From the side of the complainant he has filed proof affidavit in which he has affirmed and explained all the averments stated in the complaint and the complainant examined as PW-1 and document produced marked as Ext. A1, the mobile marked as MO-1.  OPW-1 examined on the side of opposite parties and Exts.B-1 and B-2.   Ext. A1 is the purchase bill dated 03-09-2016.

6.  Point No. 1  :-  This is a case filed by the complainant alleging deficiency of service by the opposite parties. The purchase of the mobile phone from the 1^st opposite party and the phone was manufactured by the 3^rd opposite party are admitted facts.  The questions to be here considered are that whether the screen damage was caused due to manufacturing defect or is a manmade damage.   The only exhibit is produced by the complainant is the defective phone.  There is no evidence available to come to a conclusion that the defect occurred to the mobile phone is a manufacturing defect. The complainant not had taken any steps to examine the phone through an expert. Without any cogent evidence the Forum could not come to a conclusion that the defect occurred due to manufacturing defect. It is pertinent to note that the defect occurred during the warranty period but the complainant failed to prove his case that was occurred due to manufacturing defect by producing proper documents and evidence.          

7. On going through the available records and submissions the Forum found that there is no deficiency in service had happened from the part of the opposite parties.  So, the point is found infavour of the complainant.

8.  Point No.2:-    Since the Point No.1 is found against the complainant and he is not entitle to get any relieves as prayed.  Considering the facts and circumstances of the case the Forum has not allowing any cost.

            In the result, the complaint is dismissed without cost.

            Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the  3^rd  day of January 2020. 

Date of filing:23.06.2017.

                                                                                    PRESIDENT:   Sd/-

                                                                                    MEMBER   :   Sd/-

  APPENDIX.

Witness for the Complainant.:-

PW1.              Saji                             Complainant.

Witness for the Opposite Parties:-

OPW1.          Sanal Joseph.                       Mobile Service.

Exhibits for the Complainant:    

A1.      Retail Invoice.                                  03.09.2016.

MO1.             Mobile.         

Exhibits for the Opposite Parties:-

B1.      Authorisation Letter.                     dt:17.01.2019.

B2.      Copy of Agreement.                      dt:28.01.2016.