Ravi's Defective Phone: Warranty, Minor, and the Consumer Forum
Ravi, a Class 10 student in Patna, bought a smartphone for ₹14,000 from a local shop using his savings and ₹3,000 borrowed from his sister. The bill says: 'Goods once sold will not be taken back or exchanged.' After three months, the phone stops charging. The shopkeeper says he is only a seller and Ravi must go to the company's service centre, which is 60 km away in another district. The service centre keeps the phone for 25 days, returns it with the same fault, and says the 'warranty covers only software'. Ravi's calls to the company's helpline get no complaint number. He has the bill, a warranty card, and a photo of the error message. He also has a screenshot of the shop's online advertisement saying '1-year full warranty, free replacement within 6 months'. He is 15 years old. His father says, 'Forget it, it is only ₹14,000 and we cannot fight a company.' Ravi wants to know whether he can do something without hiring a lawyer.
1. Identify two consumer rights that have been denied to Ravi and explain how the shop's 'goods once sold will not be taken back' condition should be treated under consumer law.
Read the worked answer
Rights denied.
- Right to redressal - the shop refuses to accept responsibility and the company's helpline gives no complaint number.
- Right to be heard - his complaint is not recorded or acted on.
- Right to information - the advertisement promised a one-year full warranty and free replacement within six months; the service centre now says warranty covers only software. The terms have been misrepresented.
The 'goods once sold' clause. Such a clause cannot take away statutory consumer rights. If the goods have a manufacturing defect, the seller cannot escape liability merely by displaying a notice. Under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, it can be treated as an unfair trade practice or an unfair contract term. The seller is a party to the sale and can be made a party to the complaint; the manufacturer can also be joined.
Practical point. The advertisement is evidence of the terms of sale; the bill and warranty card show the contract. A clause printed on the bill does not override an express promise made in the advertisement.
2. Ravi is a minor and has no lawyer. Explain whether he can file a complaint, where he should file it, and what evidence he should attach. Assume the claim is for ₹14,000.
Read the worked answer
Can a minor file? Yes. A consumer under the Act can be a minor; a complaint may be filed by a parent, guardian or next friend on the minor's behalf. Ravi can also file himself through a guardian. No lawyer is required; the District Commission is designed for self-representation, and the e-Daakhil portal allows online filing.
Where? The claim is ₹14,000, well within the District Commission's pecuniary limit of ₹50 lakh after the 2021 revision. He can file where he lives, where the shop is located, or where the cause of action arose. The opposite parties are the seller and the manufacturer or service centre.
Evidence to attach.
- Original bill and warranty card.
- Screenshot of the online advertisement with date and URL.
- Service-centre job sheet showing the phone was kept 25 days and returned with the same fault.
- Photo of the error message and call logs or helpline messages.
- A written complaint to the shop and company, with dates.
- A short written statement of facts and the relief sought (repair, replacement or refund, plus compensation).
Caution. Keep the phone and do not get it repaired elsewhere without permission; that could affect the claim.
3. The company says the warranty covers only software. Using the advertisement and the repeated fault, explain how Ravi could argue that this is an unfair trade practice rather than a genuine warranty limitation.
Read the worked answer
Advertisement as a representation. The shop advertised '1-year full warranty, free replacement within 6 months'. That is a representation made to induce the purchase. If the company then says the warranty covers only software, it is contradicting the terms on which the phone was sold.
Repeated fault. The phone failed after three months, was kept 25 days, and returned with the same fault. That pattern is more consistent with a hardware defect than a software limitation. The company bears the burden of showing that the fault really is software-only; a bare assertion is not enough.
Unfair trade practice. Under the Act, a false or misleading representation about the quality, warranty or replacement of goods is an unfair trade practice. The gap between the advertisement and the service centre's stand is the core of the argument. Ravi can also invoke product liability against the manufacturer.
How to argue it.
- Produce the advertisement and the bill.
- Show the service record and the repeat fault.
- Ask the Commission to direct the company to prove the software-only claim.
- Claim replacement or refund and compensation for the 25-day deprivation.
Limit. If the warranty card itself clearly excluded hardware and Ravi saw it before buying, the case is weaker - but the advertisement still matters.