Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 602.
Instituted on : 23.10.2017.
Decided on : 25.10.2018.
Basant s/o Sh. Randhir R/o village Sanghi, Tehsil and District Rohtak.
.......................Complainant.
Vs.
- Anmol Communication, Civil Road Rohtak.
- Jai Maa Enterprises Shop No.977/22 First Floor Opposite Central Cooperative Bank, Rohtak.
- Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd., 12th Floor, Ambience tower, NH-8 Gurugram-122002, Haryana.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
SMT. SAROJ BALA BOHRA, MEMBER
Present: Sh.Krishan Dhull, Advocate for complainant.
Sh.Atul Sharma for opposite party No.1 & 3 in person.
Opposite party No.2 exparte.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that complainant had purchased a mobile phone of Panasonic company from the opposite party No.1 for a sum of Rs.9990/-. That the above said mobile started creating trouble during warranty period so he deposited his set with the customer care but they charged the repair charges from the complainant despite of the fact that the mobile was within warranty period. That the mobile worked for two months but again the hanging , heating, battery backup problems appeared in the mobile set which could not be removed by the opposite parties despite his repeated requests. That the act of opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. As such, it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to refund the price of mobile set i.e. Rs.9990/- and also to pay a sum of Rs.50000/- as compensation for causing mental tension, harassment and litigation expenses etc. as explained in relief clause.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite parties No.1 & 3 filed their written reply submitting therein that complainant had visited the service centre and was charged a sum of Rs.650/- because the handset was found liquid logged and the sub-PCB was replaced by the service centre. It is submitted that the warranty was void as there was a violation of warranty condition by the complainant. That there is no merit in the complaint and the complaint is required to be dismissed in favour of answering opposite parties and against the complainant. Opposite party No.2 did not appear despite service and was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 22.05.2018 of this Forum.
3. Ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit Ex.C1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5 and closed his evidence. On the other hand, ld. counsel for OP No.1 & 3 has tendered affidavit Ex.R1 and closed his evidence.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. Perusal of the documents reveals that the complainant had purchased the mobile set on 18.11.2016 for a sum of Rs.9990/- as per bill Ex.C1. The defects in the mobile set appeared just after four months of its purchase within warranty period but the opposite party charged Rs.650/- as repair charges from the complainant as is proved from document Ex.C2. As per copy of bill placed on record as Mark-A, the handset was handed over to the service centre by the complainant for repair but the same was returned to the complainant and was not repaired by the service centre. Detailed description has been mentioned on the Mark-A regarding the repair/return of mobile by the service centre of OPs. Moreover, in the absence of any technical report, OPs have failed to prove that the mobile was liquid logged. As the defect appeared during warranty period and the same was not repaired by the OPs which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs and they are liable to refund the price mobile set.
6. Accordingly the complaint is allowed and we hereby direct the opposite party No.3 i.e. manufacturer to refund the price of mobile set i.e. Rs.9990/-(Rupees nine thousand nine hundred ninety only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 23.10.2017 till its realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.3000/-(Rupees three thousand only) as litigation expenses as well as compensation on account of deficiency in service to the complainant within one month from the date of decision. However complainant is directed to hand over the mobile set in question to the opposite party no.3 at the time of payment by the opposite party no.3.
7. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.
8. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
25.10.2018. ................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
…………………………………
Ved Pal, Member.
………………………………..
Saroj Bala Bohra, Member.
