‘Defective’ cell phone screen costs repair store Rs 5,000, woman wins consumer case

“Had there been no complaint regarding the black spot, there would have been no occasion for the complainant to repeatedly visit the service centre and subsequently issue a legal notice. Moreover, it is a settled principle of law that in case two plausible views were available, under a given set of facts, the court shall be obliged to the view which was favourable to the consumer,” the June 8 order of the commission held.

Store submitted no proof: Court

• The commission noted that, except for a “bald assertion” that the handset was delivered in proper condition, no evidence or acknowledgement was given by the store that no black spot existed at the time of delivery after repair.
• Similarly, it was also noted that the electronics store had alleged mishandling by the woman, but not expert report, photograph, or evidence had been produced to prove that the defect was caused by any impact, physical damage, or negligence by the woman.
• The commission observed that if there had been no complaint regarding the black spot, there would have been no occasion for the woman to repeatedly visit the service centre and subsequently issue a legal notice.
• When two possible views were available under any given set of facts, the commission said that a view favourable to the consumer must be taken. A consumer who spends Rs 23,960 on the replacement of a cell phone display rightly expects a defect-free screen, the order added.
• The commission further noted that the appearance of a black spot shortly after installation and its gradual increase in size indicated a defect in the replaced display panel itself, and that the allegation of mishandling the device was a mere accusation unsupported by evidence.
• The store neither replacing the display nor furnishing a proper response amounts to a deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
• The store was directed to replace the defective screen with a new genuine display free of defects without charging any additional amount, besides being ordered to pay Rs 5,000 as compensation and litigation expenses to the woman.
• The commission directed it to comply with the order within 45 days, or refund the amount of Rs 23,960 to the woman, along with interest at the rate of 7 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till its realisation.

Repair, black spot, assurance

On September 9, 2024, the woman availed of the store’s services to replace the screen of her mobile phone, for which she was charged Rs 23,960.

When the cell phone was returned, however, it showed a “small black spot” on the top of the screen, and the woman approached the store, complaining about the spot, it was alleged.

The electronic store assured the woman that the black spot would automatically disappear after some days, and if it did not, they would change it. At the time of changing the screen, the store gave a three-month oral guarantee to the woman, and on that assurance, the woman used the mobile phone as per her needs, but the black spot on the screen increased in size day by day.

The woman went to the store again in November and showed the defect to the employees, but they refused to replace the defective screen. They, however, assured her that her complaint had been sent to the head office and they would change the screen as it was within the guarantee period.

However, the screen was not changed despite repeated visits, even as the electronics store had reportedly charged her Rs 23,960, besides service charges.

The woman sent a legal notice on December 19, 2024, to the store demanding to change the defective screen, but there was no compliance.

‘Totally false complaint’

Advocate Preeti Mahajan, appearing for the electronics store, argued that the store had unnecessarily been joined as a party in the complaint and that the woman had been using the cell phone negligently and mishandling it, leading to damage to its display.

She submitted that the electronics store had duly repaired the phone on a chargeable basis, as it was not covered under warranty and was returned to the woman in a fit condition and the device’s delivery was taken after checking it thoroughly.

The woman was stated to have filed a “totally false complaint” with the motive to gain profit at the cost of the electronics store by filing the frivolous complaint. She was alleged to have not raised any objection regarding a black spot while accepting the device after its service.

The lawyer argued that there was no deficiency in service or breach of contract on the part of the store and that they never denied services to the woman.

Significance

The ruling establishes the obligation of the companies and stores to provide prompt repair, refund and other essential services and the fact that the concerns of the consumers must not be ignored, causing them unnecessary inconvenience.

Consumers must also pursue their complaints before consumer commissions so that the companies and service providers at fault are held accountable for their actions.

For consumer-related grievances, individuals may contact the consumer helpline in their respective states (Punjab helpline: 0800-22577) or call the National Consumer Helpline on 1915 for assistance.