Order

J.S. Bhatia (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under the Consumer Protection Act against the opposite parties on the averments that the complainant has purchased one Panasonic Brand Mobile on 9.4.2014, model-EZ240, bearing IMEI No.362592060 355518 for a sum of Rs.1690/- from opposite party No.1 vide retail invoice No.67/00942. One year warranty was given but just after two days from the date of purchase, mobile set became defective and stopped working. He lodged the complaint with opposite party No.2 on the directions of opposite party No.3. After ten days his mobile phone was returned to him but it worked only for one day and again became defective. On 27.5.2014, the complainant has again visited opposite party No.2 with the above said defective mobile phone and it was again given to opposite party No.2 vide job sheet dated 27.5.2014. This mobile phone is still lying with opposite party No.2 for its repair but said mobile phone can not be repaired at all as it has some manufacturing defects, which are irreparable. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite parties to give him new mobile phone. He has also claimed damages.

2. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared but only opposite parties No.2 and 3 filed written reply pleading that the complainant has submitted his handset with opposite party No.2 on 27.5.2014 with alleged problem of incoming call. The service centre retained the handset for repair and told complainant to collect his handset after 2 days. The handset has been duly repaired and is lying with opposite party No.2 but complainant for the reason best known to him has not collected his handset. The manager of opposite party No.2 has been repeatedly calling complainant to collect his handset but complainant has intentionally not collected his handset and has now filed the present complaint. Complainant has concealed the material and necessary information that the obligation of the answering opposite parties under warranty is to set right the mobile handset by repairing or replacing the defective parts only. The performance of the mobile phone depends upon the handling of the product. The complainant has neither alleged and 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 the absence of any expert evidence the claim can not be allowed. They denied other material averments of the complainant.

3. Opposite party no.1 did not file any separate written reply and its counsel made statement on 17.12.2014 that written reply submitted by opposite parties No.2 and 3 may be read as written reply on behalf of opposite party No.1.

4. In support of his complaint, complainant has tendered affidavit ExCA alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to C3 and closed evidence.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite parties No.2 and 3 has tendered affidavit Ex.OP2 to 3/A and closed evidence.

6. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the complainant in person and learned counsel for the opposite parties.

7. The complainant purchased the mobile handset in question from opposite No.1 vide retail invoice Ex.C2 for Rs.1690/-. The mobile handset of the complainant became defective and as such he gave mobile handset to service centre of the company i.e opposite party No.2 who issued job sheet dated 27.5.2014 wherein problem is mentioned as no incoming call. This fact is admitted by opposite parties No.2 and 3 in their written reply. The version of the opposite parties No.2 and 3 is that the handset has duly been repaired and is lying with opposite party No.2 but complainant for the reason best known to him has not collected his handset. The complainant has not tendered affidavit of any expert witness to prove that there is any manufacturing defect in the mobile handset in question. Under the terms and conditions of the warranty, the liability of the opposite parties was to repair the handset or to replace the defective part of the mobile handset. It is in the affidavit Ex.OP2to3/A of Rahul Nagpal, Branch Service Incharge, Panasonic India Private Limited that complainant submitted his handset with opposite party No.2 on 27.5.2014 with alleged problem of incoming call and service centre retained the handset for repair and told complainant to collect his handset after 2 days. It is further in his affidavit that handset has been duly repaired and is lying with opposite party No.2 but complainant for the reason best known to him has not collected his handset. So the opposite parties No.2 and 3 have repaired the handset of the complainant and as such there is no deficiency in service on their part.

8. In view of above discussion, the present complaint is disposed off with the directions to the complainant to approach opposite parties No.2 and opposite parties No.2 is directed to give the mobile handset of the complainant in fully repaired condition without charging any amount to him. In the circumstance of the case, there shall be no order as to cost. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under the rules. File be consigned to the record room.