BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.496 of 2015
Date of Instt. 17.11.2015
Date of Decision : 29.09.2016
Pawan Kumar son of Davinder Kumar, R/o Village Lohhian, Tehsil Nakodar, District Jalandhar.
..........Complainant
Versus
1.Mobile House, Phagwara Gate, near Bhagat Singh Chowk, Jalandhar through its authorized signatory/incharge/owner etc
2.Gopal Telecom, Office No.210, 2nd Floor, Lotus Tower, near Namdev Chowk, Jalandhar through its incharge/authorized signatory/owner.
3.Panasonic India Pvt Ltd., 1st Floor, ABW Tower, IFFCO Chowk, MG Road, Sector-25, Gurgaon, Haryana.
.........Opposite parties
Complaint Under Section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act.
Before: S. Bhupinder Singh (President)
Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)
Present: Complainant in person.
Sh.Vishal Chaudhary Adv., counsel for OPs No.2 & 3.
OP No.1 exparte.
Order
Bhupinder Singh (President)
1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of 'The Consumer Protection Act' against the opposite parties (hereinafter called as OPs) on the averments that the complainant purchased mobile Panasonic Eluga from OP No.1 vide invoice dated 13.8.2015 for a sum of Rs.6250/- with warranty of one year. The said mobile set became defective as its display stopped working. The complainant delivered the mobile set to OP No.2 authorized service centre of the company for repair but OP No.2 did not repair the mobile set. Since then the mobile set has been lying with OP No.2 and they did not repair the same nor handed over to the complainant. The complainant contacted the OP No.2 so many times through telephone but all in vain. On such averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the OPs to pay compensation and litigation expenses.
2. Upon notice, OPs No.2 & 3 appeared through counsel and filed a written reply pleaded that the OPs booked the handset of the complainant on 12.9.2015 and OP No.2 issued job sheet and repaired the handset of the complainant and after repair of the handset the OP No.2 made various calls to the complainant to visit and collect the handset as the handset is ready for the delivery but the complainant did not turn back to receive the handset.
3. Notice of this complaint was given to the OP No.1 but nobody has turned-up despite service and as such it was proceeded against exparte.
4. In support of his complaint, complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CA alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 and Ex.C2 and closed his evidence.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs No.2 & 3 has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.OP/A and closed the evidence.
6. We have heard the Ld. counsel for the parties, minutely gone through the record and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of Ld. counsels for the parties.
7. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by both the parties, it stands fully proved on record that the complainant purchased mobile Panasonic Eluga from OP No.1 vide invoice Ex.C1 dated 13.8.2015 for a sum of Rs.6250/- with warranty of one year. The said mobile set became defective as its display stopped working. The complainant delivered the mobile set to OP No.2, authorized service centre of the company for repair vide job sheet, written on the invoice Ex.C1 itself and this fact has been admitted by the OP No.2 and 3 in their written version in para No.4 that the complainant deposited the mobile set with OP No.2 on 12.9.2015 vide job sheet on Ex.C1. Since then the mobile set has been lying with the OP No.2 and they did not repair the same nor handed over to the complainant. The complainant contacted the OP No.2 so many times through telephone and the complainant filed the details of the phone contacts made by complainant with OP No.2 which is on record Ex.C2 and the OP No.2 and 3 failed to rebut these details.
8. The plea of the OPs No.2 & 3 is that they repaired the mobile set of the complainant and made various calls to the complainant to collect the handset from OP No.2 but he did not turn-up to receive the handset. This plea of the OPs No.2 & 3 is not tenable because the OPs No.2 & 3 could not produce any evidence to prove that they had repaired the mobile set of the complainant and made any call to the complainant to collect the mobile set nor the OPs No.2 & 3 have produced the mobile set in this Forum to prove that they had repaired the mobile set and it is now fully functional.
9. So, from the entire above discussion, it is clear that the OP No.2 has failed to repair the mobile set of the complainant and made it fully functional. They have also failed to return the mobile set to the complainant. As such, we hold that the mobile set of the complainant is not repairable. Therefore, the OPs No.2 & 3 are liable to replace the mobile set of the complainant with new one of same make and model or to refund its price.
10. Resultantly, we allow the complaint with cost and the OPs No.2 & 3 are directed to replace the mobile set of the complainant with new one of same make and model or to refund the price of the mobile set i.e. Rs.6250/- to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which OPs No.2 & 3 shall be liable to pay interest @ Rs.9/- % per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till the payment is made to the complainant. The OPs No.2 & 3 are also directed to pay cost of litigation to the tune of Rs.2000/- to the complainant. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of cost, under rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Dated Parminder Sharma Bhupinder Singh
29.09.2016 Member President
