Haryana

Ambala

CC/235/2015

Rajni - Complainant(s)

Versus

Ajit Watch Company - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

04 Aug 2016

ORDER

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM :

                                                         AMBALA

 

                     Complaint Case No.       :      235 OF 2015

                     Date of Institution         :      25-08-2015

                     Date of Decision            :       04.08.2016

Rajni wife of Sh. Balwinder Kumar, resident of  H.No.1365, Lakki Complex, Anand Nagar-B, Boh Road, Boh, Ambala Cantt Distt. Ambala.

                                                                                                                            :::::::Complainant.

                                                                                                       Versus

                

1.           Ajit Watch Company, 167/4, Railway Road, Opp. Standard Hotel, Ambala Cantt (through its Prop.).

2.           Panasonic Smart Phones service Center, Near Ashoka Dairy, Near Main Branch, P.N.B. Sadar Bazar, Ambala Cantt.

3.           Jaina Marketing & Associates, D-170, Okhla Industrial Area Phase-I, New Delhi-110020( through it M.D.)

                                                                                                               :::::::Opposite Parties.

       Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

CORAM:        SH.A.K.SARDANA, PRESIDENT

                     SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER

 

Present:-        Complainant in person

                     OP  No. 1 ex-parte

Sh. Mohit Tayal, Adv. counsel  for OPs No.2 & 3                      

O R D E R

1.           Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant  purchased  a new Panasonic Eluga-I mobile set bearing IMEI  No-355941060718794  from  OP  No.1  vide bill No.  395  dated 16-04-2015  in  a  sum of Rs. 9500/- with 1 year warranty/ guarantee. After about two months, the mobile  set started giving problem like display and touch screen not responding. Thereafter on 25-6-2015, complainant approached OP No.1 about these problems who advised the complainant to approach OP No. 2  i.e. service  center of OP No.3 where the official of OP No.2 asked the complainant to deposit  the set with them for its repair and as such, complainant deposited the set with OP No.2 vide job sheet No- KJASPHR 138615PI 5406. Thereafter complainant again visited the OP No.2 after 5 days for collecting the set but OP No.2 asked to come again after 5/6 days. Thereafter the complainant has visited many times but the OP No.2 has neither repaired the mobile set nor has returned the set in question. Feeling aggrieved, the complainant sent  many e-mails to the service center but neither the OPs replaced the mobile set nor repaired the same despite repeated requests and visits. Hence, having no alternative, complainant preferred the present complaint seeking relief as mentioned in the prayer para of the complaint.

 

2.          Notice of complaint was served upon all the OPs but OP No.1 failed to appear before the forum inspite of service through regd.post and thus he was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 14.10.2015. OPs no. 2 & 3 appeared through counsel and submitted reply raising preliminary objections qua non maintainability of complaint , no cause of action against the answering respondent and complainant has not come with clean hands and has suppressed the true and material facts by misrepresenting & misinterpreting  and making false allegations. On merits, it  has  been  urged that the answering OPs provided best service to the complainant but she has not come present for collecting the mobile set after repair and thus OP is not at fault. However, warranty of the mobile set in question has been admitted in para 7 of the reply  submitted by the OPs. In the end, OPs No. 2 & 3 have urged that there is no deficiency in service on their part and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

 

 

3.          To prove her version, complainant tendered her affidavit  as  Annexure C -X  alongwith  documents as Annexures C-1 &  C-2 and closed her evidence whereas OPs failed to tender any evidence despite availing various opportunities and as such, the evidence of OPs No.2 & 3 was closed by court order on 5/7/2016.

 

4.           We have heard the Ld. counsels of the parties and gone through the case file minutely. The main grievance of the complainant is that the mobile set of Panasonic company so purchased  by her from OP No.1 started giving problem from the very beginning and did not rectify by OP No.2 service centre of OP company despite retaining the same wherefrom it is established that this model of the mobile set  is having a manufacturing defect, which is beyond the repairs of service centre.  Besides it, to strengthen her case, complainant  has relied upon the case law reported in 2008(1) CLT Page 15 rendered by Hon'ble National Commission in case titled as Soni Erricson India Ltd. Vs. Ashish Aggarwal and 2007 (1) CLT Page 614 passed by Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh in case titled as Head Marketing and Communication, Nokia Vs. Ankush Kapoor and other wherein it is held that inspite of repair of mobile set, it did not work and thus observed that the handset was having inherent defects and refund of cost of mobile was ordered.  On the other hand OP’s counsel argued that OP company is the reputed company and provides world class service to its customers and the complainant has filed frivolous complaint only to grab compensation from the Ops and requested for dismissal of complaint.

 

 

5.           After hearing the counsel for both the parties and going through the record, it is crystal clear from the document Annexure C-1 that the mobile set in question of PANASONIC Company  was  sold  by OP No.1 to the complainant on 16-04-2015. Further it is also not in dispute that the mobile  in question became defective during the warranty period and was not repaired by technicians of OP service centre, rather retained the same with their service centre. On the other hand, the version of OP that complainant did not come present at their service center to collect the repaired mobile set is not believable as they failed to tender any document or affidavit of official of service centre in this regard despite availing opportunities to tender evidence in this regard. Further during the pendency of the complaint before the forum, OP’s never produced the Mobile set in question before the forum for directing the complainant to receive the same. As such, the version put by the OPs is discarded.

 

 

              From the above, it is confirmed that the mobile set in question is beyond repairs and complainant has utilized the said set about  two months only as clear from job sheet dated 26/6/2015 (Annexure C-2) issued by the service centre of OP company. Keeping in view the totality of facts and circumstances of the present case, we have come to the conclusion that this mobile set was having inherent defect & could not be rectified by the OPs despite various visits of the complainant to their service centre. Hence, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice committed by OPs. Accordingly we accept the complaint and direct the OPs to comply with the following directions within thirty days from the communication of this order:-

                (i) to return Rs.9500/- i.e. the costs of the mobile set in question to the complainant alongwith simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of institution of complaint to till date.

               (ii)  also to pay Rs.3000/- as costs of litigation.

 

Let the aforesaid order/directions issued above must be complied with by the OPs within a stipulated period failing which all the awarded amounts shall further attract simple interest @ 12% per annum for the period of default. So, the complaint is decided in above terms. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced: 04.08.2016                                    Sd/-

                                                               ( A.K.SARDANA)

                                                                       PRESIDENT

                                      Sd/-

                      ( PUSHPENDER KUMAR )

                                            MEMBER