Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/14/601

Amit Behl - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bedi Business - Opp.Party(s)

M.S.Sethi

30 Jan 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

                                     

                                                         C.C. No.601 of 02.09.2014

                                                          Date of Decision:30/01/2015

 

Amit Behl aged 34 years s/o Satish Kumar, 29-A, Atam Nagar, Ludhiana. 

                                                                                      Complainant

                             Versus          

1.Bedi Business House LLP, Regd. Office Bedi Farm House, Vill Dhandra PO Basant Avenue, Ludhiana through second address at Br.Ist Floor, 20-A, Shastri Nagar, Opp.R.S.Model School, Ludhiana through its authorized signatory.

2.S.S.Communication, Near MCL D-Zone back side Shigaar Cinema, Samrala Road, Ludhiana through its authorized signatory.

3.Panasonic India P Ltd, Ist Floor, ABW Tower, Sec-25, Gurgaon 122001, Haryana through its authorized signatory.

                                                                                                Opposite parties

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Quorum:    Sh. R.L. Ahuja, President

                   Sh.Sat Paul Garg, Member

 

Present:       Sh.M.S.Sethi, Adv, for complainant.

                   OP1 ex-parte.

                   Sh.Yash Paul, Adv, for OP2.

                   Sh.Govind Puri, Adv. for OP3.

                                                ORDER

 

R.L. AHUJA, PRESIDENT.

 

1.                Present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been filed by Sh.Amit Behl(hereinafter in short to be described as ‘Complainant’) against Bedi Business House LLP, Regd. Office Bedi Farm House, Vill Dhandra PO Basant Avenue, Ludhiana through second address at Br.Ist Floor, 20-A, Shastri Nagar, Opp.R.S.Model School, Ludhiana through its authorized signatory and another (hereinafter in short to be described as ‘OPs’) directing them to replace the defective mobile set with new one against extended warranty or refund the amount of RS.10,000/- alongwith interest @18% till realization besides Rs.15,000/- as compensation and litigation costs of Rs.3300/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.

2.                In brief, the case of complainant is that the complainant for its personal use purchased the new mobile Panasonic Mobile T 21 white 357010050062179 from OP1 on payment of Rs.10,000/- vide invoice BBHLLP-Retail-2930 dated 20/2/2014. As per OP1, said mobile carried warranty of one year from the date of sale by him. After purchase of the said mobile set, the complainant faced very difficulties in operating said mobile set due to various types of defect arose in the mobile set. The complainant lodged various complaints with OP1 and OP2. However, the complainant failed to keep the record of the said complaint and attended job sheets but the complainant is in possession of latest service job sheet dated 28.6.2014. Despite of various visits, the OP2 failed to rectify the defects as faced by the complainant such as touch penal faulty/VOC27 etc., and still said mobile set was not replaced by the OP and it is lying with OP2 since 28.6.2014. However, Op2 orally disclosed that they are helpless to repair the mobile under the warranty of OP3. The said mobile set is carrying various internal/inbuilt/inherent defects and the Ops are careless to provide their service after sale, as such, Ops are responsible for rendering deficient service and unfair trade practice. Hence, this complaint.

3.                Upon notice of the complaint, Op2 and OP3 were duly served and appeared through their respective counsels and filed their separate written replies, whereas, despite service, OP1 failed to appear and was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 29.9.2014 by this Forum.  

4.                OP2 filed the written reply, in which, it has been submitted in the preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable and merits dismissal. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering OP in this case. The complainant presented his mobile hand-set before the answering OP for repair with the fault “touch penal faulty”. After thoroughly checking by the answering OP, he came to the conclusion that touch screen of the mobile hand-set of the complainant was broken near the speaker and the touch screen of the mobile hand-set is out of warranty meaning thereby that there is no manufacturing defect in the mobile hand-set which required to be repaired or replaced. The answering OP asked the complainant to replace the touch screen of the mobile handset and for this purpose, the complainant has to pay Rs.4551/- for replacement of the touch screen as the broken of the touch screen is not fall in the warranty. The complainant left the mobile set with the answering OP by saying that he will arrange the money within 1-2 days but after that the complainant never visited the service centre with money to replace the touch screen of the mobile handset with new one. Since there is no fault on the part of the answering OP as such, complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed. On merits, similar pleas were taken as taken in the preliminary objections and at the end, denying all other allegations of the complainant being wrong and incorrect, answering OP made prayer for dismissal of the complaint with cost.

5.                OP3 filed the separate written reply, in which, it has been submitted in the preliminary objections that the complaint is gross abuse of the process of law and is liable to be dismissed under Section 26 of the Consumer Protection Act. The complainant has concealed the material facts from this Hon’ble Forum and no cause of action has arisen in favour of the complainant and against the answering OP to file the present complaint. The handset in question has been badly mishandled by the complainant. There is no deficiency in service or breach of contract on the part of the answering OP. The answering OP or its service centre has never denied after sales services to the complainant and they are still ready to provide service to the complainant but now on chargeable basis as the handset is out of warranty being physically damaged. The handset was submitted with OP2 for the first time on 28.6.2014 i.e. after 4 months of purchase as the handset has been alleged to be purchased on 20.2.2014.  The display of the screen of the handset in question was broken, which is a physical damage and is not covered under the warranty and repair of display screen is on chargeable basis. The estimate of repair was given to the complainant but was not approved by him. This fact shows that there is no inherent defect in the handset. The obligation of the answering OP under warranty is to set right the air conditioner by repairing or replacing the defective parts only. The performance of the mobile phone depends upon the physical handling of the product, apart from installation and downloading of various mobile applications, games and other software. The problem of display as alleged in the complaint has occurred due to physical mishandling of the handset by the complainant as the display screen of the handset was broken when the handset was submitted for repair with OP2 and there was no other inherent defect in the handset and this fact was duly mentioned in the job sheet issued by OP2. The handset in question is lying with the OP2 and the same was not repaired as the approval was not given by the complainant qua the repair of the same. The officials of OP2 have been calling upon the complainant to collect his handset but the complainant with ulterior motive has not taken back his handset.  No such assurance to replace the handset was given by the answering OP as alleged by the complainant. The complainant has not set out any legitimate ground entitling him for replacement of the mobile phone with damages and litigation cost. The complainant has neither alleged any specific irreparable manufacturing defect and inferior quality of the specific part of the product nor filed any documentary evidence i.e.authenticated report of expert and qualified person of central Approved Laboratories in support of alleged submission as required under law. In absence of any expert evidence, the claim cannot be allowed. No cause of action has arisen in favour of the complainant and against the answering OP to file the present complaint. On merits, it is submitted that it is not denied that complainant had purchased the mobile in question from OP1 as alleged. However, it is not denied that there was warranty of one year from the date of purchase subject to terms and conditions mentioned in the warranty card enclosed with the product. Otherwise, similar pleas were taken as taken in the preliminary objections and at the end, denying all other allegations levelled by the complainant against the answering OP being wrong and incorrect, answering OP made prayer for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

6.                In order to prove the case of complainant, his learned counsel tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CA1, in which, he has reiterated all the contents of the complaint. Further, learned counsel for the complainant has proved on record documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C4.

7.                On the other hand, learned counsel for OP2 tendered into evidence, affidavit of Mr.Ajay Kumar, its Assistant Manager Service as Ex.RA, in which, he has reiterated all the contents of the written reply filed by the OP2 and rebutted the case of the complainant. Further, learned counsel for the OP2 has proved on record documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R3.

8.                Similarly, learned counsel for OP3 tendered into evidence, affidavit of Sh.Rahul Nagpal, its Branch Service Incharge as Ex.RA3, in which, he has reiterated all the contents of the written reply filed by the OP3 and rebutted the case of the complainant. Further, learned counsel for the OP3 has proved on record the documents Ex.R3/1 to Ex.R3/3.

9.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the documents on file very carefully.

10.              Admittedly, the complainant had purchased the mobile in question i.e.Panasonic Mobile T 21White vide retail invoice No.BBHLLP-Retail-2930 dated 20.2.2014 Ex.C2 from OP1 for an amount of Rs.10,000/-. It is proved fact on record after the purchase of the mobile handset in question, the complainant has faced the problems in the same qua touch penal faulty and the complainant had approached the OP2 for repair of the same. As per the allegations of the complainant that OP2 failed to repair or replace the handset in question despite his repeated requests and various visits. Further, as per the allegation of the complainant that the mobile in question is under the warranty of having one year from the date of its purchase.

11.              Though, learned counsel for the OP2 and OP3 have not denied the plea taken by the complainant. However, they have taken the plea that touch screen of the mobile handset of the complainant was broken near the speaker and the same is out of warranty and physical damage is not covered under the warranty and repair of display screen is on chargeable basis. However, they failed to adduce any cogent and convincing evidence and documents on record in order to prove their respective plea. Since, it is proved fact on record that mobile handset of the complainant is lying with the OP2 for repair which has not been carried out by the OP2 and it is a proved fact that the mobile in question is within the warranty period which fact is evident from copy of document Ex.C4 and Ops have failed to produce on record any document in order to rebut this plea of the complainant.

12.              Though, the complainant has sought the relief qua the replacement of the mobile handset in question with new one. However, the complainant has not placed on record any documents or any sufficient evidence of any expert in order to establish the fact that the mobile handset of the complainant suffers from any manufacturing defect and needs replacement. However, the complainant is entitled for the repair of the mobile handset in question from the Ops without any costs.

13.       Sequel to the above discussion, by partly allowing the complaint of the complainant, we hereby direct the OPs to carry out the necessary repair in the mobile of the complainant which is covered under the warranty, by repairing/replacing the defective parts of the same and make the same proper functional to the entire satisfaction of the complainant without charging any costs. Further, Ops are directed to pay compensation and litigation costs compositely assessed as Rs.1500/- to the complainant on account of mental pain, agony and harassment suffered by him. Order be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter, file be consigned to the record room.

 

          (Sat Paul Garg)              (R.L. Ahuja)

                Member                              President

Announced in Open Forum

on 30.01.2015

GurpreetSharma