Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 196.
Instituted on : 28.03.2017.
Decided on : 11.12.2018.
Dharmender Hans son of Sh. Daya Singh, Resident of Para Mohalla, Rohtak.
.......................Complainant.
Vs.
- Mr. Lucky, Lucky Mobile repairing, Shop No. 127, Palika Bazar, opposite Civil Hospital, Rohtak.
- Mr. Tarun, Gobind Ram Enterprises, Gohana road, Rohtak.
- Panasonic Care, 977/22, Ist Floor, Opposite The Central Co-op. Bank, Near Pizza Hut, Delhi Road, Rohtak.
- Panasonic Company Ltd., C-52, Phase-11 Pusta Road, Block-C, Sector-80, Noida (U.P.) 201305.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
SMT.SAROJ BALA BOHRA, MEMBER
Present: Sh. Sidharth Kinra, Advocate for the complainant.
Opposite parties exparte.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that complainant has purchased a mobile phone Panasonic Luga12 13GB having IMEI No.353369074766918 from the respondent No.2 vide Cash receipt no.321 dated 24.12.2016 for Rs.8500/-. That respondent no.1 & 3 are service centre, opposite party No.2 is dealer and opposite parry No.4 is the manufacturer of alleged mobile. That after purchasing the mobile, it did not even work for one week and started giving trouble, on which the complainant went to OP No. 2 and they told the complainant to visit OP No. 1 the authorized service center of Panasonic. That the complainant went to OP No. 1 and they deposited the mobile of the complainant on 02.01.2017 and told the complainant to deposit Rs.1700/- cash against the repair and he would get back after repairing within one week else they will replace the mobile. That complainant deposited the mobile set alongwith amount of Rs.1700/- with OP No.1. The complainant visited the opposite parties many times but they did not respond properly and never told the status of the above mentioned mobile. That the act of opposite parties of selling a defective mobile is illegal and there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs. Hence, this complaint and the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite parties to pay the amount of Rs.8500/- towards cost of mobile, deposited amount i.e. Rs. 1700/- with OP no.1, alongwith interest at the rate of 18% per annum and also to pay Rs. 11,000/- as compensation and litigation expenses as explained in relief clause.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. OPs No. 1 and 2 failed to appear before the court despite due service, hence, they were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 09.05.2017 of this Forum respectively. OP No. 3 appeared and through an application for dismissal of complaint has submitted that OP No.3 is authorized repairing centre, moreover complainant never approached OP No.3 in warranty period. That opposite party No.3 is nowhere in the scene and complainant has dragged the respondent no.3 without any reason to grab compensation and there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering opposite party. However, opposite party No.3 failed to appear before the court and was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 17.09.2018. Notice issued to OP No. 4 through registered post not received back either served or unserved. Hence, OP no. 4 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 16.11.2018 of this Forum.
3. Ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.CW1 to Ex.CW9 and closed his evidence.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. Perusal of the record reveals that the complainant had purchased the mobile on 24.12.2016 and as per job sheet Ex.CW2 dated 12.01.2017, there were problem of Restart/reboot and the mobile was within warranty period. The contention of complainant is that the mobile phone in question was not working properly from the very beginning and the defect could not be removed by the OPs despite his repeated requests and opposite party No.1 also charged Rs.1700/- from the complainant for repair of alleged mobile whereas the mobile was within warranty period. It is also observed that the defect appeared just within one week of its purchase which proves that there was some manufacturing defect in the mobile set. On the other hand, opposite parties did not appear despite service and as such it is presumed that opposite parties have nothing to say in the matter and all the allegations leveled by the complainant against the opposite parties regarding defect in the mobile set stands proved. Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and OP No.1, 3 & 4 are liable to refund the price of mobile set.
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, complaint is allowed and we hereby direct the opposite party No.1, 3 & 4 to pay Rs.8500/-(Rupees eight thousand five hundred only) towards cost of mobile set alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 28.03.2017 till its realization alongwith deposited amount i.e. Rs. 1700/- (Rupees One thousand seven hundred only) with the OP No. 1 and also to pay a sum of Rs.3000/-(Rupees three thousand only) as compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision.
7. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
11.12.2018.
.....................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Ved Pal Hooda, Member.
……………………………….
Saroj Bala Bohra, Member
