Punjab

Nawanshahr

CC/118/2015

Harmeet Lal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Manu Communication - Opp.Party(s)

In person

10 Mar 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

SHAHEED BHAGAT SINGH NAGAR

Consumer Complaint No.         :     118 of 14.10.2015

Date of Decision:                    :     10.03.2016

Harmeet Son of Nanju Ram C/o Mahant Kewal Dass Gali No.15, Nai Abadi, Nawanshahr, District SBS Nagar.

                                                                             …Complainant

Versus

1. Manu Communication & Info, Karyam Road, Opposite Market Committee, Nawanshahr through its owner/Manager/Partner.
2. Telezone, (Panasonic Mobile Service Centre) Rahon Road, Opposite Swarankar Bhawan, Nawanshahr its owner/Manager/Partner.
3. Panasonic Customer Care Service at D-172, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-1, New Delhi – 110020, through its Managing Director.

          …Opposite Parties

                             Complaint under the Provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM:

SH.G.K. DHIR, PRESIDENT

MS.SUSHMA HANDOO, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant                      :         In person.

For OPS                                  :         Ex parte.

 

ORDER

PER SH.G.K. Dhir, PRESIDENT

 

1.       Complainant filed present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, by alleging that he purchased a Panasonic Mobile Model ELUGA L (4G) vides bill No.877 dated 24.06.2015 for Rs.13,000/- from OP No.1 for his daily use.  OP No.1 assured at that time as if the mobile belongs to a reputed company and will work properly, failing which the same will be replaced.  Since beginning, the purchased mobile set started  creating trouble due to hanging, auto switching going off and heating etc.  On 10.08.2015, the said mobile phone was switched off automatically and did not start again.  Complainant then deposited the mobile with OP-2 alongwith original bill, but receipt/slip in that respect was not issued.  Complainant visited OP-2 many times with request to provide him a mobile phone.  On 24.09.2015, when complainant approached Op-2, then the later disclosed that spare parts of the mobile are not available, due to which mobile phone cannot be repaired.  On 06.10.2015, complainant again approached OP-2 for getting the mobile phone, but the later disclosed as if mobile phone has been sent to OP-3 for repair.  On being asked by complainant for receipt, OP-2 issued receipt with date of 24.09.2015.  Defective mobile set was sold to complainant and the same has not been returned back after repair till date and as such by pleading deficiency in service on part of OPs, directions sought to them to return or replace with defective free mobile set. Compensation for mental agony and harassment of Rs.50,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.15,000/- also sought.  In alternative refund of price amount sought.

2.       OP No.1 earlier appeared through Darshan Kumar, the father of Amit Verma, the Prop. of OP-1.  Written reply was submitted on 04.12.2015 on behalf of OP-1 through which sale of the mobile in question to complainant through bill No.877 dated 24.06.2015 was admitted.  It is claimed that responsibility for replacement or refund is of the Service Centre i.e. OP-2 only.

3.       In separate written statement filed by OP-2, it is pleaded inter alia as if complaint not maintainable; complainant estopped by his act and conduct from filing the complaint and that complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the warranty clauses.  It is claimed that replacement of the mobile is not permissible, but repair of the same alone is permissible as per warranty clauses provided the same necessitated not due to physical/liquid damage.  Admittedly, complainant approached OP-2 on 24.04.2015 with complaint of dead mobile.  Job sheet for the same was prepared and handed over to complainant.  It is also admitted that mobile set of complainant had been sent to OP-3 for necessary repairs.  Each and every other averment of the complaint denied by claiming that warranty of the mobile is for repair only.  Rather, it is claimed that mobile set of complainant is ready for delivery qua which intimations were sent by OP to complainant on 31.10.2015, 03.11.2015, 27.11.2015, 16.11.2015 and 11.12.2015.  Despite these intimations, complainant did not visit OP-2 for collecting the mobile and as such prayer made for dismissal of the complaint by claiming that there is no deficiency in service on part of OP.

4.       OP No.3 is ex parte in this case.         

5.       Affidavit Ex.CW1/A of complainant and photocopies of documents i.e. Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-3 were tendered in evidence and thereafter complainant closed the evidence.

6.       On the other hand none appeared for OP No.1&2 despite grant of opportunity for producing evidence on 15.01.2016, 22.01.2016, 05.02.2016, 26.02.2016, 04.03.2016 and 10.03.2016 and as such after long wait, OP No.1&2 were proceeded against ex parte due to non-appearance by them.    

7.       Ex parte arguments of complainant heard.  File also carefully perused.

8.       From written statement of OP-2 it is made out that mobile set in question actually was deposited by complainant with it due to complained of problem of hanging or of its auto switching going off.  Though, it is the case of OP-2 that intimation to complainant was sent on different dates of 31.10.2015, 03.11.2015, 27.11.2015, 16.11.2015 and 11.12.2015 qua repair of the mobile set being done, but no record in that respect has been produced.  If really intimation of repair of the deposited mobile set would have been sent by OP-2 to complainant on above said dates, then record of the same must have been retained, but the same is not produced and as such plea of OP-2 is not believable qua sending of such intimation on the above referred dates.  Rather, availability of the deposited mobile set with OP-2 or with OP-3 is proved by above pointed admissions suffered by OP-2 in written statement as well as though contents of Ex.C-1, in which mention made qua sending of the mobile to SFR/L4 Repair (PR52).  So certainly submissions advanced by complainant has force that though he deposited the defective mobile set with OP-2, but the same has not been returned to him till date.

9.       Copy of the purchased bill Ex.C-2 has been produced to establish that the mobile set in question was sold by OP-1 to complainant on 24.06.2015 for consideration of Rs.13,000/- with warranty validity of one year.  That warranty as per note recorded in print on Ex.C-2 to be provided by Service Centre or the Manufacturer.  In view of that noting recorded on Ex.C-2, it is obvious that as per agreement, the warranty for repair, to be provided by service centre i.e. OP-2 or by the Manufacturer i.e. OP-3 only.  So contents of written statement of OP-1 are correct that liability of replacement or of repair is that of OP No.2&3 only.  As the mobile set has not been returned to complainant despite its deposit by him with OP-2 till date and as such certainly complainant has suffered mental agony and harassment.

10.     As complainant kept on using the mobile phone in question for three months after its purchase and as such entitlement for refund of the price amount is without interest.  As OPs defaulted in not producing the repaired mobile set in this Forum and as such inference is obvious that the mobile set in question may be un-repairable.  Being so appropriate directions in this case should be for refund of the price amount alongwith compensation for mental harassment and litigation expenses.   

11.     Consequently, this complaint is allowed Ex parte with directions to OPs No.2&3 to refund the price amount of Rs.13,000/- of the mobile set in question to complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.  In case this amount not refunded within 30 days from date of receipt of copy of this order, then OP No.2&3 liable to pay interest @8%  per annum on the above referred amount of Rs.13,000/- also w.e.f. today till payment.  Compensation of Rs.5,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.1,500/- more allowed in favour of complainant and against OP No.2&3 only.  Liability of OP No.2&3 adjudged as joint and several.   

12.     The certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties forthwith, free of costs, as permissible under the rules and the file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

Dated:  10.03.2016

 

  

(Sushma Handoo)                                                        (G.K. Dhir)

Member                                                                         President