BEFORE THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, DHENKANAL
C.C.Case No. 56 of 2016
Debendra Nath Mishra, aged about 40 years
S/o Dibakar Mishra of Durga Bazar,
PS: Town, Po/Dist: Dhenkanal Complainant
Versus
1) Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd., having its Head Office
At: 12th Floor, Ambience Island, N.H &, Gurgaon122002
Represented through its Managing Director.
2) Channel 4, Authorised Service Station
For Panasonic India, At: Singh Plaza,
Dolamundai, Bajrakabati Road, PO/Dist: Cuttack
Represented through its Proprietor
3) M/s Mishra Associates, Near Bustand,
P.S: Town, PO/Dist: Dhenkanal
Represented through its Proprietor Opp. Parties
Present: Sri Badal Bihari Pattanaik, President,
Sri Khirod Kumar Pani, Member
Counsel: For the complainant: Purna Chandra Mishra & Associates
For the Opp. Parties: None appeared
Date of hearing argument: 28.12.2016
Date of order: 06.01.2017
ORDER
Sri Badal Bihari Pattanaik, President
In the matter of an application U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 filed by the complainant alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opp. Parties.
1) Very briefly, the case of the complainant stated are that he has purchased one Panasonic P61 Model Handset from O.P.No.3 on 30.4.2015 on payment of Rs. 13,000/- and the hand set is warranted for a period of one year from the date of purchase. It is alleged that after purchase, the complainant noticed that the handset is having display problem with unusual broken signs inside the set. On noticing the defect, the complainant contacted the authorized service center and the O.P. No.2 advised the complainant to wait for some days as spare parts of the set is not available. The defect of crack signs developed day by day for which again the complainant contacted the O.P.No.2 who advised the complainant that the set will be repaired by the company office at Kolkata as such type of repairs are not carried out by them. When the hand set developed the defect and completely did not function its display the complainant handed over the hand set to the O.P.No.2 for onward delivery and repair of the set. The O.P. No.2 refused to repair the set free of cost even though it was within the warranty period. The complainant being dissatisfied with the conduct of the O.P.no.2 issued a legal notice on 26.12.2015 to the O.P.No.2 and to the customer care division of Panasonic India Ltd. Despite receipt of the notice both of them did not pay any heed for which a reminder notice was issued to the O.P.No.2 & 1 . As the O.P.No.1 did not repair the handset and retained the set with them and did not deliver the same to the complainant after its repair which amounts to deficiency in service. As the O.Ps could not rectify the defects the hand set is having manufacturing defect and it needs replacement. Since the O.Ps could not rectify the defect and also did not replace the defective hand set within its warranty period it amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for which the O.P.No.1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable for such latches. Therefore, the complainant has come up before this Forum seeking for a direction to the O.P.No.1 & 2 to repair the handset free of cost and if the handset is not repairable it may be replaced with a new one or in alternative the cost of the hand set be refunded to the complainant. Further the complainant claims compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and harassment caused to the complainant. Besides, the complainant claims cost of the litigation of Rs. 5,000/-. The contents of the petition are supported by affidavit.
2) The Opp. Parties neither appeared nor filed any written version. Therefore, the matter was heard from the complainant alone basing on the documents available on record. Now the only issue before us to be decided as to whether the Opp. Parties have sold a defective mobile hand set and are in deficiency of service by not removing the defects within the period of warranty? It is not disputed that the complainant has purchased one Panasonic P61 Model Handset from O.P.No.3 on 30.4.2015 on payment of consideration of Rs. 13,000/-. It is also not disputed that the hand set in question is warranted for a period of one year from the date of purchase. In support of the allegation the complainant has filed the Xerox copy of Retail Invoice dated 30.4.2015 of Mishra Associates, Near Bus stand, Dhenkanal which discloses that the complainant has paid a sum of Rs. 13,000/- to the Opp. Parties for purchase of one Panasonic P-61 hand set The warranty card filed by the complainant also discloses that the hand set is having warranty for a period of twelve months which starts at the time of product’s original purchase by the first end-user. The complainant alleges the hand set soon after its purchase developed defects in display with unusual broken signs for which he handed over the hand set on 10.10.2015 as evident from the Channel-4 Job Sheet. The complainant also sent a pleaders notice to all the Opp. Parties on 25.1.2016 and on 26.12.2015 but the Opp. Parties did not take any steps to remove the defects nor replaced the hand set free of cost. Now therefore, taking into consideration of the allegations of the complainant as contended in the complaint petition which is supported by affidavit and the documents available on record, we come to a conclusion that the Opp. Parties have sold a defective hand set and are in deficiency in service by not removing the defects within the period of warranty. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the allegations of the complainant more particularly in absence of any denial from the side of the Opp. Parties. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the Opp. Parties have committed deficiency in service and liable for payment of compensation. Hence ordered.
ORDER
The consumer complaint is allowed on exparte in the light of the observations made in the preceding paragraphs. The Opp. Parties are jointly and severally liable to supply a new defect free hand set at the same cost to the complainant with fresh warranty or in alternative refund the amount of Rs. 13,000/- to the complainant. Besides, the Opp. Parties are directed to pay compensation of Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees two thousand) only along with cost of the litigation of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees one thousand) only to the complainant within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order failing which the Opp. Parties shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum over the awarded amount till its payment.
(Khirod Kumar Pani) (Badal Bihari Pattanaik)
Member President
