DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)
Consumer Complaint No.637of 2016
Date of institution: 26.09.2016 Date of decision : 27.09.2017
Sanjay Mittal son of Bhagwat Parsad Mittal, resident of House No.234, Sector 57, Mohali.
……..Complainant
Versus
1. Ashoka Enterprises, Shop No.4-5, Naya Gaon, District Mohali through its Proprietor/Partner.
2. Manager/M.D. of Panasonic India Limited, 12th Floor, Ambeience Tower, Gurgaon, Haryana.
3. Devinder Communication, shop No.2212/1, Pipli Wala Town, Manimajra, Chandigarh 160101 through its Proprietor/Partner.
………. Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of
the Consumer Protection Act.
Quorum
Shri Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President
Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, Member
Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Member
Present: Complainant in person.
OPs ex-parte.
ORDER
By Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Member.
Complainant Sanjay Mittal has filed this complaint against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as the OPs) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:
2. The complainant had purchased one mobile phone of Panasonic Eluga Switch Grey from OP No.1, manufactured by OP No.2, vide retail invoice dated 18.10.2015 for Rs.16,800/-. The mobile had replacement guarantee for one year. From the very beginning the mobile had network problem and used to show no sim. The complainant contacted OP No.1 who gave him the address of OP No.3 which is the authorised service centre of OP No.2. The complainant went to OP No.3 on 22.06.2016 and gave his mobile phone to it vide service job sheet. OP No.3 asked the complainant to come after three weeks to collect the phone. The complainant collected the mobile set from OP No.3 after three weeks and when he inserted the sim in the mobile, it was again showing no Sim. The body of the mobile was also broken but the same was in good condition and had no breakage when given to OP No.3. The complainant asked the OP No.3 who told him that there was manufacturing defect in the mobile and it needs to be replaced. OP No.3 asked the complainant to contact OP No.2. The mobile is still lying with OP No.3 and the complainant informed this fact to OP No.2 by e-mail but no response has been received from OP No.2. The complainant also contacted OP No.3 many times but same reply was given by OP No.3. Hence this complaint for giving directions to the OPs to replace the mobile with a new one or to refund the price of the mobile phone; to pay him Rs.20,000/- as compensation for harassment, agony, etc. and Rs.10,000/- as costs of litigation.
3. Notice sent to OP No.1 was delivered upon it on 02.11.2016 as per the Tracking Report retrieved from the site of India Post and none appeared for it, OP No.1 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 06.12.2016. Shri N.S. Sidhu, Advocate filed memo of appearance for OP No.2 on 06.12.2016 and sought time to file POA and reply. On 16.12.2016 neither anyone appeared nor POA/ reply filed on behalf of OP No.2. Hence OP No.2 was proceeded against ex-parte on 16.12.2016. Notice sent to OP No.3 was delivered upon it on 18.01.2017 as per the Tracking Report retrieved from the site of India Post and none appeared for it, OP No.3 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 02.02.2017.
4. In order to prove the case, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex. CW-1/1; e-mail Ex.C-1; warranty card Ex.C-2; retail invoice dt. 18.10.2015 Ex.C-3 and job sheet Ex.C-4.
5. We have heard the complainant and have gone through the contents of the file.
6. The complainant has purchased the mobile phone from OP No.1. Due to problem in the handset, the complainant contacted OP No.3 i.e. service centre of OP No.2 on the advice of OP No.1. The complainant alleged that the OP No.3 has not sorted out the problem of the handset of the complainant; rather it damaged the body of the mobile. The complainant has led his evidence to support his claim but the OPs chose not to appear and contest their case despite being served. It means, the Ops are admitting the version of the complainant and they have nothing to say in this regard. However, no liability can be fastened upon OP No.1 as it has only sold the mobile handset to the complainant. It is OP No.2 and 3 being the manufacturer and service centre respectively are responsible for not sorting the problem in the handset of the complainant. Hence, the case of the complainant stands proved against OP No.2 and 3.
7. We are of the opinion that the OP No.2 and 3 are deficient in service. Hence, we direct the OP No.2 and 3 to jointly and severally refund to the complainant the price of the mobile phone i.e. Rs.16,800/- (Rs. Sixteen thousand eight hundred only) since the handset was under warranty as is evident from Ex.C-4. We further direct OP No.2 and 3 to pay him a lump sum compensation of Rs.5,000/- (Rs. Five thousand only) for mental agony, harassment and costs of litigation. The complaint against OP No.1 is dismissed. The complaint stands allowed accordingly.
The OP No.2 and 3 are further directed to comply with the order of this Forum within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the aforesaid awarded compensation amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of this order till actual realisation.
The arguments on the complaint were heard and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Pronounced
Dated: 27.09.2017
(A.P.S.Rajput) President
(Amrinder Singh Sidhu)
Member
(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)
Member
