Pranav B Prem

The Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission 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 establish any manufacturing or technical defect in the mobile phone in the absence of expert evidence and that there was no proof of any guarantee period covering the handset.

Also Read: Closing Genuine Mediclaim As “No Claim” Amounts To Deficiency In Service, Chandigarh Consumer Commission Holds Oriental Insurance & Raksha TPA Liable

The appeal was decided by a Bench comprising Inder Singh Mehta, President, and Yogita Dutta, Member. The State Commission observed that mere allegations of defect, unsupported by expert or technical evidence, are insufficient to fasten liability on the dealer, particularly when the sales invoice itself records that goods once sold would not be taken back.

The case arose from a consumer complaint filed by Pradeep Singh, who had purchased a Samsung mobile phone from Rajat Enterprises for a total consideration of ₹9,499. Out of this amount, ₹5,000 was paid in cash, while the balance was financed through monthly instalments from a bank. The complainant alleged that soon after purchase, the mobile phone developed software-related issues affecting its proper functioning. According to him, despite repeated repairs by the dealer, the problem persisted. In December 2021, he requested replacement of the handset, which was refused by the dealer.

Aggrieved, the complainant approached the District Consumer Commission, Una Camp at Nahan, seeking replacement of the mobile phone or, in the alternative, refund of the purchase price along with compensation. As the opposite party failed to appear, the District Commission proceeded ex-parte and allowed the complaint. The dealer was directed to replace the handset with a new one or refund ₹9,499 with interest, besides paying ₹20,000 as compensation and ₹10,000 towards litigation costs.

Challenging this order, the dealer preferred an appeal before the State Commission. The appellant contended that the complainant had failed to implead the manufacturer as a necessary party and had not produced any expert or technical evidence to establish a manufacturing or software defect. It was further argued that the complainant continued to retain and use the mobile phone, which belied the claim that it was defective and non-functional.

Before the State Commission, the complainant failed to appear despite service of notice and was proceeded ex-parte. The Commission therefore proceeded to examine the record and the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant.

The State Commission noted that the burden of proving a manufacturing or technical defect squarely lies on the complainant. It observed that apart from the complainant’s own affidavit, no corroborative expert evidence had been produced to show that the mobile phone suffered from any technical or software defect. The Commission held that an affidavit by itself, without technical corroboration, cannot discharge the burden of proof in cases alleging defects in electronic goods.

The Commission further examined the plea that the defect had arisen during the guarantee period. It found that there was nothing on record to establish that the mobile phone was covered by any guarantee. The tax invoice placed on record did not mention any guarantee period and, on the contrary, specifically stated that goods once sold would not be taken back. The Commission observed that the complainant, having produced the invoice himself, was deemed to be aware of these terms.

Also Read: Fabricated Inspection Report Cannot Prove Manufacturing Defect, Appeal Against Sonalika Tractors Dismissed: Delhi State Consumer Commission

In the absence of expert evidence and proof of any applicable guarantee period, the State Commission held that no deficiency in service could be attributed to the dealer. It concluded that the District Commission had erred in allowing the complaint ex-parte without proper appreciation of the evidentiary requirements in cases involving alleged manufacturing or technical defects.  Accordingly, the State Commission allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned ex-parte order passed by the District Consumer Commission. The parties were left to bear their own costs, and the complaint stood dismissed. 

Cause Title: Rajat Enterprises v. Pradeep Singh

Case No: First Appeal No. SC/2/FA/212/2025

Coram: Inder Singh Mehta, President, and Yogita Dutta, Member