Delhi

West Delhi

CC/17/160

SANTOSH KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

JAIN TELECOM - Opp.Party(s)

25 Sep 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (WEST)

CASE NO.  160/2017

SH. SANTOSH KUMAR

H.NO. D-19/43, GALI NO. 19,

SHAHBAD DIARY, PEHLAD PUR

NEW DELHI-110042.                          …..Complainant

VERSUS

JAIN TELECOM

WZ-618, GALI NO. 2,

SRI NAGAR, RANI BAGH,

DELHI-110034.                              …..Opposite Party-1

 

PANASONIC COMPANY PVT. LTD.

886-F, SPIC BUILDING,

MALLS ROAD GUINDY,

CHENNAI-600032.                            …..Opposite Party-2

 

DAKSHY INTERNATIONAL SERVICES

D-12/189, SAI BABA CHOWK,

SECTOR-8, ROHINI,

NEW DELHI-110035.                          …..Opposite Party-3

 

O R D E R

 

PUNEET LAMBA, MEMBER

The complainant has filed the present complaint against the O.P under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Brief facts as stated by the complainant are that the complainant purchased mobile handset of make and model Panasonic P57 Nova from OP-1 with one year warranty for a sum of Rs. 7,550/- on 13.06.2016. It is alleged that after 6 months mobile phone developed hanging problem. After that complainant deposited the disputed phone to OP-3 on 14.12.2016 for the same and was told to collect handset after 20-25 days but even after 25 days the handset was not repaired and the complainant was told to come again after 7 days. When the complainant visited after 7 days OP-3 returned the handset without repairing. Thereafter, the complainant lodged complaint vide e-mails to OP-2.Further, the complainant deposited the handset again on 06.03.2017 with OP-3 who informed the complainant that a sum of Rs. 4,000/- would be charged for repairing. It is alleged that the handset was not repaired and returned till date. Though, the letter was again sent to OP-2 but to no effect. Hence, the present complaint for refund a sum of Rs. 7,550/- cost of mobile handset and a sum of Rs. 30,000/- for compensation towards mental, physical harassment and litigation expenses.

     After notice, none put in appearance on behalf of OPs and accordingly were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 12.05.2017.

     When complainant asked to lead ex-parte evidence, he filed ex-parte affidavit of evidence testifying the contents of the complaint on oath and relied on copy of invoice dated 13.06.2016 and copy of job-sheets dated 14.12.2016 & 06.03.2017.

     We have heard complainant in person and gone through the material on record carefully and thoroughly.

     The version of the complainant remained unrebutted and unchallenged and there is no reason to disbelieve the version of the complainant and he has been able to show that he has purchased handset vide invoice No. 004, dated 13.06.2016 from OP-1 and the job-sheets clearly showed that the handset in question was deposited with OP-3 with issuance of hanging problem under warranty period. The complainant through documents has succeeded an establishing his case. Therefore, we are of considered view that the OP-3 is negligent in not repairing the handset under warranty period and OP-2 being manufacturer also deficient in services by not redressing the grievances of the complainant despite requests. Hence, OP-2 & OP-3 are jointly and severely liable to refund the cost of mobile handset. 

     Keeping in view above discussions and observations, we direct OP-2 & OP-3 to refund a sum of Rs. 7,550/- cost of mobile handset and we also award a sum of Rs. 5,000/- for compensation towards mental, physical harassment and litigation expenses within 45 days from the receipt of the order. In case of default of payment in time OPs shall be liable to pay interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till actual realization.

File be consigned to Record Room.

     Copy of Order be given as per rules.

     Pronounced on ______25th_____ September, 2019.

 

(PUNEET LAMBA)                               (K.S. MOHI)

  MEMBER                                        PRESIDENT