HP State Consumer Commission Sets Aside Ex-Parte Order Against Mobile Dealer, Cites Absence Of Guarantee Terms And Lack Of Expert Evidence
The Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, comprising Justice Inder Singh Mehta (President) and Yogita Dutta (Member), has allowed an appeal filed by a mobile phone dealer and set aside an ex-parte order passed by the District Consumer Commission, holding that the complainant failed to prove any manufacturing or technical defect in the absence of expert evidence and...
The Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, comprising Justice Inder Singh Mehta (President) and Yogita Dutta (Member), has allowed an appeal filed by a mobile phone dealer and set aside an ex-parte order passed by the District Consumer Commission, holding that the complainant failed to prove any manufacturing or technical defect in the absence of expert evidence and that no guarantee period was specified in the sales invoice.
Brief Facts
The complainant purchased a Samsung mobile phone from the opposite party, Rajat Enterprises, for a total consideration of ₹9,499, out of which ₹5,000 was paid in cash, while the remaining amount was financed through monthly instalments.
After the purchase, the handset allegedly developed software-related issues affecting its proper functioning. It was contended that despite repeated repairs, the problem persisted. In December 2021, when the complainant requested replacement of the handset, the opposite party refused.
Aggrieved, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Consumer Commission, Una Camp at Nahan, seeking replacement of the mobile phone or refund of the purchase price along with compensation.
As the opposite party failed to appear, the District Commission proceeded ex parte and directed the opposite party to replace the handset with a new one or, in the alternative, refund ₹9,499 with interest. The District Commission also awarded ₹20,000 as compensation and ₹10,000 towards litigation expenses.
Challenging this order, the opposite party preferred an appeal before the State Commission.
Arguments By The Parties
The complainant contended that the mobile phone suffered from software defects soon after purchase and that the defect arose during the guarantee period, thereby obligating the opposite party to replace the handset or refund the purchase amount. The refusal to exchange the handset was alleged to amount to deficiency in service.
The opposite party argued that the complainant failed to implead the manufacturer as a necessary party and did not adduce any expert or technical evidence to establish the existence of a manufacturing or software defect. It was further submitted that the complainant continued to retain and use the mobile phone, which belied the claim that it was non-functional.
Before the State Commission, the complainant failed to appear despite service and was proceeded ex parte.
Findings Of The Commission
The State Commission observed that the burden of proving a manufacturing or technical defect lay squarely on the complainant. It noted that apart from the complainant's affidavit, no expert or technical evidence had been produced to substantiate the allegation of defect.
The Commission further held that there was no material on record to show that the mobile phone was covered under any guarantee period. It noted that the tax invoice did not mention any guarantee period and specifically recorded that goods once sold would not be taken back.
In the absence of expert evidence and proof of any guarantee period, the Commission held that no deficiency in service could be attributed to the opposite party.
Accordingly, the State Commission allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned ex-parte order passed by the District Commission.
Case Title: Rajat Enterprises v. Pradeep Singh, First Appeal No. SC/2/FA/212/2025