Assam

Dibrugarh

CC/25/2014

DR. NAVNEET SWARGIRI - Complainant(s)

Versus

JAINA MARKETING AND ASSOCIATES - Opp.Party(s)

SRI ARUP KUMAR PHUKAN

28 Nov 2016

ORDER

The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant is working as Deputy Superintendent Medical Officer of Oil India Limited at Duliajan. On 30.10.13 the complainant purchased a Panasonic Smartphone  from OP No.2 at Rs.19000/- being Model No.P51 (Black) S/n-P510513004323, under product IMEI No.(1)357007050254360, (2) 357007050007156 and payment of the same was made through credit card. OP No.2 also issued warranty card to the complainant on 30.10.13 and assured that the back up of the battery of the Smartphone is two and half day. But the complainant has been suffering from severe battery problem of the Smartphone since inception. The complainant while on 31.10 13 charged the battery for 100% but the charge of the battery of the Smartphone did not last even for a half day. As such, the complainant reported the matter to OP No.2 but the OP No.2 assured that  the battery will automatically take up its back up and work properly and complainant should not be bother about the same. Meanwhile, the complainant purchased another devices of powerbank for worth Rs.3500/- on 19.07.14 and waiting for taking back up of the Panasonic P51 model phone till July, 2014. Whereas, the problem of the battery of the Smartphone  Panasonic P 51 could not be recovered. Thereafter, the complainant handed over the Smartphone Panasonic P51 to the authorised service centre i.e. OP No.3 as per verbal advice of the OP No.2 on 25.07.14. OP No-3 had issued the job sheet vide S/N 22330 dated 25.07.14. After handing over the said Smartphone the complainant found that the OP No.3 is not taking any initiative rather gave some false assurance to repair the said Smartphone. Being aggrieved with such behaviour, the complainant wrote to OP No.1 on several occasion but said OP No.1 also gave some false assurance. All the OPs have deliberately failed and neglected to provide proper service of the Smartphone in spite of repeated request made by the complainant, though it was within the warranty period. That being the position and the act of the OP while directly attributable to the negligence of the OPs being a clear case of deficiency in service, the complainant had to suffer enormous mental, physical harassment for which the complainant claimed to refund Rs.19000/- against cost of the Smartphone Panasonic P51 together with interest per annum with effect from 30.10.13 till the date of payment and Rs.15000/- on account of financial loss, harassment and mental agony along with cost of litigation.

 After registering the case notices were sent to the OPs by registered post. The OPs received the notices but did not attend the Forum. The OPs also did not submit the written statements and contested the case for which the case against all the OPs have been proceeded ex-parte.

In this case complainant has led his evidence by swearing affidavit and exhibited as many as  19 (Nineteen) documents to prove his case.

Upon going through the evidence of the complainant and hearing the argument we arrived the following decisions.

       

DISCUSSION, DECISION AND REASONS THEREOF :

During evidence of the complainant as PW-1 has supported the contention of complaint petition and stated that on 30.10.13 he purchased a Panasonic Smartphone from OP No.2 at Rs.19000.- being Model No.P 51 (Black) and payment was made through credit card of SBI. Ext-1 is the written invoice and Ext. 2 is the detail report of credit card. While the above Panasonic P51 Smartphone  was purchased OP No.2 has issued a warranty card with date, seal and signature and Ext.3 is the said warranty card. But from the very next day i.e. 31.10.13  the complainant suffered battery problem of the aforesaid Smartphone which was reported to  OP No-2. But the OP No.2 assured the complainant that  the battery will automatically take its back up and work properly, but it may take time. As such, the complainant purchased another device of power bank worth Rs.3400/- on 19.07.14. The complainant was waiting till middle of the July, 2014 but the problem of the battery did not cure.  The complainant went to Guwahati and handed over the Smartphone to the  authorised centre i.e. OP No.3 who assured a job certificate vide S/N No. 22330 dated 25.07.14. Ext-5 is the said job sheet. Said Smartphone was lying in the Guwahati Customer Care for about three weeks and later on it was reported that battery problem could not be entertained after lapse of three or four months of purchase.  It is also informed that they will have to sent the phone to main office i.e. Delhi to take care and repair. The complainant as such wrote several letter to OP No.1 but OP No.1 who gave some false assurance to repair the same but no such action has been taken by OP No-1. Ex.5 (a) to Ex.5 (n) are those correspondence letters.

     Thus, from the above part of evidence of PW-1 in the present case, this fact is clearly prove on the record particularly from Ext.1 and 2 that the complainant purchased Panasonic P51 Smartphone on 30.10.13 at Rs.19000/- from OP No.2 by paying the consideration amount through credit card of SBI. Hence, it depicts clear that there is no dispute that the complainant purchased Panasonic P 51 Smartphone from OP No-2. Since the complainant suffered from battery problem  he reported the matter to OP No.2 but OP No.2 falsely consoled the complainant  that the battery will automatically take up its back up and properly work in its due course  but it will take time. When the battery did not work up till middle of July, 2014 the complainant gave the Panasonic P 51 Smartphone to OP No.3 and OP No.3 issued Ext.5 job sheet on 25.07.14. But even then the OP No.3 failed to sort out the problem of the battery and sent the Smartphone to Delhi for checking and repair. Thereafter, the complainant getting no other reply from the OP No.2 and 3 the complainant wrote letter to OP No.1 who is the importer of Panasonic Smartphone. Complainant made several correspondences with OP No.1 vide Ext.5(a) to Ext. 5(n). OP No-1 though admitted and also apologised but did not solve the problem causing great mental harassment and agony to the complainant. These are all admitted fact for which OP No.1,2 and 3 did not contest the case.

     By stating the above fact PW-1, the complainant has disclosed prima facie material of committing negligence, deficiency in service and illegal trade practice  by the OPs in rendering the proper service to the complainant. As to the negligence, the OPs have failed to cure the problem of the handset Panasonic P 51 for which the complainant had to suffered immense trouble in functioning his day to day life without the handset. The complainant requested the OPs to provide  a standby handset from Guwahati Customer Care yet it was not provided. The complainant became really frustrated with the hope of getting rectified handset, for which the OPs shall not be absolved from their liability. As such, for not repairing the handset as well as not replacing the same by the OPs amount to a negligence and thus, there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs. We are of the considered view that OPs are equally and severally liable for the defect of the Panasonic P 51 handset which was caused deliberately, negligently and wilfully.

        In view of the foregoing decision and after considering the fact and evidence this Forum comes to  an unassailable conclusion that the OPs have failed to rebut and impair the evidence of the complainant as regard to defect of the Panasonic P 51 Smartphone for which the complainant had to moving from post to pillar for getting the defective mobile handset cured ultimately which did not cured.

    Considering the above the complainant has established the deficiency in service as committed by OPs as defined U/s. 12 of the C.P. Act. As such, OPs No.1,2 and 3 are held liable jointly and severally for the claim of the complainant. Accordingly, this Forum doth order  the OPs to pay Rs.19,000/-  against the cost of the Smartphone Panasonic P 51 with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of purchase of the mobile phone i.e. from 30.10.13 till the date of payment. Further, OPs are directed to pay Rs.5000/- as compensation towards mental harassment and agony caused to the complainant for not delivering the  handset after due repairing. The OPs are also directed to pay Rs.1000/- for the cost of filing this case. The OPs are directed to pay the above said amount to the complainant within one month from the date of this judgment through this Forum.

                 Send copy of this judgment to OPs for compliance.