Both Manufacturer And Seller Are Liable For Service Oversight Of Mobile Phones: Ernakulam District Commission

Brief Facts of the Case

The complaint, filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019, details purchasing a mobile phone from the seller, which was manufactured by HMD Mobile Pvt. Ltd. Issues with the phone arose immediately, with difficulties switching it on. Even though the salesman said it was due to a tight keypad, the issue continued, but the seller insisted it was normal for a new phone. The complainant seeks a replacement or resolution, along with compensation for emotional distress caused by the persistent phone issues.

Contention of the Opposite Party

The counsel for manufacturers refuted the complaint's allegations, asserting it lacked substance and a valid cause of action under the Consumer Protection Act. They rejected any claim of a manufacturing flaw in the reported device, stating that the problems raised by the complainant were due to mishandling. It was argued that their handsets passed stringent quality control, challenging the complainant's vague claims. The opposing party emphasized that the warranty from the manufacturer exclusively addressed mechanical faults not caused by external factors. They advocated for the complaint's dismissal, contending that the complainant failed to present any evidence or expert reports related to this matter.

Observations by the Commission

The commission highlighted that the complaint falls under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019, as the complainant qualifies as a consumer, having purchased a mobile phone from the seller. Despite issues with the phone acknowledged by the salesman, the seller dismissed the problem as typical for new phones, which constituted a deficiency in service and an unfair trade practice, according to the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The bench further stated that the burden of proof rests on the consumer to provide documentary evidence of the defect occurring during the warranty period. The seller provided service for the mobile phone, adding more evidence of the presence of a defect.

The Commission directed the opposite parties to refund the amount of Rs 1,600 spent on the purchase along with the payment of Rs 2,000 as compensation for mental distress and Rs 1,000 towards the cost of proceedings.

Case Title: Shihab Vs. HMD Mobile Pvt Ltd.

Case Number: C.C. No.- 453/2021

Click Here To Read/Download The Order