An 18-year-old customer who paid Rs 51,424 for a premium smartphone and saw it stop working within weeks has won a consumer dispute after the manufacturer allegedly refused to repair it under warranty, citing accidental damage. A consumer commission in Punjab has directed the manufacturer to refund the purchase price with six per cent annual interest and ordered the manufacturer, seller and authorised service centre to pay Rs 15,000 in compensation and litigation expenses.President Jagdishwar Kumar Chopra and member Mandeep Kaur of the Amritsar District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission were hearing a complaint filed by Anjanbir Singh Grover against the manufacturer, seller, online marketplace and authorised service centre. “The mere assertion that the handset suffered accidental damage cannot, without adequate supporting technical particulars, be treated as conclusive proof of the cause of malfunction,” the commission said on October 14.The dispute arose after Grover purchased a new smartphone with 128GB storage in September 2025. According to his complaint, the handset began switching on and off after around 15 days of use and stopped functioning completely on October 13, 2025. When he approached the authorised service centre, its records noted ordinary scratches but no dents or damage to the phone’s body or back cover. The phone was then returned without repair, with the service centre citing accidental damage and estimating repair charges at Rs 41,900.Phone stopped working within weeksGrover purchased the phone through an online marketplace. The purchase documents identified a seller, while the e-marketplace supplied the product. The invoice dated September 22, 2025, recorded the price at Rs 51,424.After the phone stopped working on October 13, Grover took it to an authorised service centre in Amritsar, which issued a job sheet and said the handset would be sent for a detailed examination. He was told the process would take around seven to 10 days.According to the complaint, Grover made repeated visits to the service centre seeking an update. On October 30, he was informed that the phone was not covered by the warranty because of alleged accidental damage. The service centre returned it without repair and provided a proforma invoice estimating the repair cost at Rs 41,900.Grover disputed the explanation, pointing to the service centre’s own records, which noted only general scratches and marks. He sought a refund of Rs 51,424 and the separate delivery charge of Rs 575, along with interest, compensation for harassment and litigation expenses.Story continues below this adCommission questions evidence of accidental damageThe manufacturer argued that its one-year limited hardware warranty covered manufacturing defects but excluded damage caused by accidents, misuse and other external factors. It maintained that an examination at its authorised repair centre in Bengaluru had identified accidental damage responsible for the malfunction.The service centre said its initial job sheet recorded the handset’s apparent external condition and was not intended to rule out internal damage. It maintained that it had followed the manufacturer’s diagnostic process and could not disregard its findings.The commission, however, noted that the job sheet prepared when the handset was deposited on October 13 recorded only general scratches and marks. It stated that the back cover was not broken, the body had no dents, the screw heads were intact and the SIM tray was undamaged. The delivery report dated October 30 recorded the same physical condition.The commission found that the photographs relied upon by the manufacturer did not adequately establish a connection between the alleged damage and the reported malfunction. It held that the opposite parties had failed to satisfactorily establish the factual basis for denying warranty benefits.Story continues below this adIt also rejected the manufacturer’s contention that Grover had to produce an independent expert report proving a manufacturing defect. The commission noted that he had approached the authorised service centre promptly and that the phone had remained within the authorised service network for detailed examination.The commission directed the manufacturer to refund Rs 51,424 with interest at six per cent per annum from November 14, 2025, the date the complaint was filed, until realisation. It further directed the manufacturer, seller and authorised service centre to pay Rs 10,000 as compensation and Rs 5,000 towards litigation expenses, jointly or severally.The order must be complied with within 45 days of receipt of its copy, failing which Grover may seek its execution through the commission. The complaint against the online marketplace was dismissed because the commission found that its role was limited to supplying the product and did not fasten liability on it in this dispute.TakeawayIf a newly purchased product stops working within weeks, preserve the purchase invoice, warranty documents and service records. If a seller or manufacturer denies warranty coverage citing accidental damage, ask for the technical evidence linking that damage to the defect.Story continues below this adFor consumer-related grievances, individuals may contact the consumer helpline in their respective states and Union territories (Punjab: 0800–22577) or call the National Consumer Helpline at 1915 for assistance.Don’t miss out on these stories:Photographer to pay bride Rs 35,000 after arriving 70 minutes late to weddingBengaluru society withholds 66-year-old woman’s FD for 6 years, she gets Rs 3.35 lakhSleep apnoea surgery claim denied, private insurer told to pay Delhi man Rs 1.98 lakh