Order No. 8 dt. 10/11/2016
The case of the complainant in brief is that she purchased one mobile phone being HTC 526 g=dual sim phone on 14.4.15 from Spice Hotspot. The complainant faced trouble while operating the mobile phone due to malfunctioning of the device after the said purchase. The complainant after getting contact number of company went to the service centre at TVS Electronics Ltd. on 20.7.15 and deposited her mobile phone with an exception that her problem will be solved. She made several queries after 22 days. On 12.8.15 she received an information from o.p. no.1 to the effect that during inspection they found liquid damage and for repairing the same they demanded Rs.9800/- and the complainant had to pay Rs.171/- towards service check up cost. It was stated further by the complainant that during the period of keeping the mobile phone with o.p. some major parts were replaced. The complainant informed the said fact to the company through e-mail. The complainant after getting the mobile phone from the o.p. no.1 handed over to a local mobile repairing shop wherefrom she came to learn that due to mechanical or electronically failure in the spare parts some Sulphur king of material got leaked within its board may be for over heating or such which clearly established manufacturing of defect. On further communication o.p. offered 30% discount overall repairing charges within the warranty period.
In view of the said fact the complainant by filing this case prayed for return the value of the mobile phone as well as compensation of rs.50,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.40,000/-.
The o.ps. contested this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations of the complaint. It was stated that the complainant visited the service centre only once on 20.7.15 for repairing of her mobile phone. On physical verification it was found that hand set mobile phone had damaged liquid content in it, and as such the complainant had to be treated as out of warranty as per the warranty policy of HTC India Pvt. Ltd. For inspection of the hand set out of warranty repairs a primary inspection charge of Rs.171/- levied. On thorough inspection it was noticed that the liquid had gone into the mother board and accordingly an estimate for repair was given to her. The complainant refused to pay the estimated charge and took the phone away and went to a local unauthorized repairing shop from whom she got impression that the phone had manufacturing defect. TVS Electronics Ltd. being a service provider of HTC, it has no alternative but follow the warranty policy of HTC India Pvt. Ltd. The staff of o.p. no.1 are well trained and they behaved properly with the customers and o.p. no.1 denied any allegations of misbehaviours with the complainant. In order to make a case such fact was manufactured by the complainant. In view of the facts and circumstances as stated above o.ps. prayed for dismissal of the case.
On the basis of the pleadings of parties the following points are to be decided:
- Whether the complainant purchased a mobile phone.
- Whether it had some manufacturing defect.
- Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of o.ps.
Decision with reasons:
All the points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of facts.
Ld. lawyer for the complainant argued that the complainant after purchase found that it was not functioning properly and after searching through internet came to know the service centre of the manufacturer and contacted the o.p. no.1 who after inspection of the mobile set informed that there was leakage of liquid from the said mobile and the condition of the warranty for repairing of the mobile was not covered in respect of the defect found in the said mobile. Subsequently the complainant whenever found that she was being asked to pay Rs.9800/- for repairing of the said mobile whenever the price of the said mobile was Rs.11,300/- the complainant refused to accept the offer of o.p. no.1 and took away the mobile set. Ld. lawyer emphasized that the complainant subsequently went to a local repairing shop who after examining the mobile informed that the mobile had the manufacturing defect. On the basis of the said fact the complainant filed this case praying for refund of the price of the mobile set and also for other damages.
Ld. lawyer for the o.ps. argued that the complainant purchased the mobile phone and o.p. no.1 being the service provider of HTC and the defect found in the said mobile was of liquid damage which can be caused only due to improper use of the hand set which clearly mentioned in the warranty card. Apart from the said fact ld. lawyer also brought to our notice that o.p. no.1 must follow the warranty policy of HTC India Pvt. Ltd. and since the liquid damage was not covered within the warranty condition therefore the complainant will not be entitled to get any relief as prayed for.
Considering the submissions of the respective parties it appears from the materials on record that the complainant purchased the mobile set, manufactured by HTC Pvt. Ltd. and it is also an admitted fact that during the period of warranty the defect arose in the said mobile phone. Now the question is whether the mobile phone had any manufacturing defect. From the materials on record it is found that the mobile phone was purchased on 14.4.15 and the complainant visited the service centre of o.p. no.1 on 20.7.15 i.e. 3 months after the purchase said mobile set. The complainant has claimed that the mobile phone had manufacturing defect, if that would have been so, the complainant could not have to use the mobile from the date of her purchase till date of her visiting the service centre. The complainant has alleged that during the period of her keeping the mobile phone at the service centre some parts were replaced but in order to corroborate the same the complainant could not produce any substantive materials before this Forum to corroborate her allegation that the service centre removed the parts from her mobile phone. The complainant has claimed that the local repairing shop informed the complainant that the mobile set had manufacturing defect for which liquid came out on the mother board causing excessive heat in the said mobile phone. But in order to ascertain the said fact the complainant could have sought for an opinion from an expert viz. for seeking opinion from George Telegraph Institute or any ITI dealing with the electronics material and after getting report from those authorities we could have come to the conclusion that the mobile set had manufacturing defect. But instead of taking proper steps the complainant relied on the opinion of local repairing shop which is not at all believable and accordingly, we hold that since the liquid damage does not cover within the warranty therefore the complainant will not be entitled to get the relief as prayed for. Thus all the points are disposed of accordingly.
Hence, ordered,
That the CC No.89/2016 is dismissed on contest without cost against the o.ps.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
