BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.29 of 2015

Date of Instt. 30.01.2015

Date of Decision :08.07.2015

Baljit Singh aged about 35 years son of Simar Dass R/o Village Bhundian, Post Office Behram Srishta, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant Versus

1. M/s Mobile House, H.O.Chadha Mobile House Pvt Ltd, Redg.Office Phagwara Gate, Near Bhagat Singh Chowk, Jalandhar through its Prop./Partner/Authorized Signatory.

2. Harsehaj Communication, Plot no.172, 2nd Floor, Aristocrat Market, Adjoin Ollega Saloon, New Vijay Nagar, TV Centre Road, Jalandhar, through its Authorized Person.

3. Panasonic India Pvt Ltd, Plot No.7, 5th Floor Nanak Chamber, New Link Road, Andheri West, Opposite Fun Camera, Near Laxmi Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400058 through its Director.

.........Opposite parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Sh.HS Sandhu Adv., counsel for complainant.

Sh.Vishal Chaudhary Adv., counsel for Ops No.2 & 3.

Opposite party No.1 exparte.

Order

J.S.Bhatia (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, against the opposite parties on the averments that the complainant had purchased one mobile phone model Panasonic Mobile T41 having IMEI/ESNI No.354533061 518355 and IMEI/ESN2 No.354533061518363 from the store namely Mobile House on 28.10.2014 vide invoice No.42943 for a consideration of Rs.7600/- including Vat, Surcharge. From the very beginning there was shortcoming in the quality and standard and there remained fault, imperfection in the mobile handset namely Panasonic Mobile T41. It used to switch-off automatically. It has some other persistent problems e.g it has manufacturing error and it was cumbersome to make or receive calls from the handset. Its display was also faulty. The camera was also not working and its battery was always power hungry. He approached opposite party No.1 who advised him to approach opposite party No.2 for removal/repair of said defects. The complainant has several times visited alongwith all the required documents in order to get his mobile phone examined through the opposite party No.2 which is the service centre namely Harsehaj Communication which is authorized by the company but each and every time the actual fault and shortcoming were solved only for time being, but at the last the handset used to resume its actual erroneous position. The complainant was totally astonished on 1.12.2014 when the mobile handset was brought before the service centre for its well working but it was switch-off on the permanent basis. Till then the efforts in order to restore the handset in its original position turned futile. The mobile phone was retained by the opposite party No.2 service centre and the complaint was registered vide job sheet No.KJASPPB1701214K12183 dated 1.12.2014 having ASP Code KJASPPB170 and it was assured to the complainant that his handset will be got replaced from the opposite party No.3 i.e company as it has a manufacturing fault and is irreparable and a new handset will be handed over/delivered to him within 10-12 working days. Since then the complainant made several rounds at the place of opposite party No.2 i.e said service centre in order to know the actual position of handset but each and every time the staff of the opposite party No.2 i.e service centre did not give any satisfactory reply and lingered the matter on one pretext or other. The opposite party No.2 i.e service centre on 27.12.2014 flatly refused to deliver the new handset to the complainant. The employees of the service centre also told to the complainant that opposite party No.3 has changed their warranty terms and conditions and the complainant is not entitle to get the benefit of warranty. The said mobile phone is still in the custody of opposite party No.2. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite parties to replace the mobile handset free of cost with new one of the same quality or to refund its price to him. He has also claimed damages and litigation expenses.

2. Upon notice, opposite parties No.2 and 3 appeared and filed a written reply, inter-alia, pleading that as per the information and record available with the opposite parties, the complainant has purchased the handset on 28.10.2014 and from that date the handset was working properly and there was no fault in the handset but the complainant in order to harass and pressurize the opposite parties filed the present complaint. In fact the complainant firstly visited the office of opposite party No.2 on 1.12.2014. It is necessary to mention that after the preliminary checking the engineer of answering opposite parties told the complainant that he has not used the handset properly and due to the usage of the third party applications in the handset said problem has occurred and the complainant was ever eager to book his handset and forced the answering opposite parties to change the handset as there was problem in the handset and for the satisfaction of the customer the answering opposite parties booked the handset and sent the same for repair to the head office and head office returned the same after the repair of the handset and which was received by the service centre and after that the service centre make 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. They denied other material averments of the complainant.

3. Upon notice, opposite party No.1 did not appear and as such it was proceeded against exparte.

4. In support of his complaint, learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CA alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C8 and closed evidence.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite parties No.2 and 3 has tendered affidavit Ex.OPW1/A and evidence of opposite parties No.2 and 3 was closed by order.

6. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the learned counsels for the present parties.

7. The complainant purchased the mobile handset in question from opposite party vide retail invoice dated 28.10.2014 Ex.C1 for Rs.7600/-. According to the complainant, soon after purchase, the mobile handset developed various defects as mentioned in the complaint and he approached opposite party No.2 i.e service centre and ultimately the opposite party No.2 booked his mobile handset vide service job sheet dated 1.12.2014. Further according to the complainant, the opposite party No.2 has failed to rectify the defect and give back the mobile handset to him inspite of service of legal notices Ex.C3 and Ex.C4 upon opposite parties No.2 and 3. On the other hand, the version of the opposite parties No.2 and 3 is that the handset has been repaired and is lying with service centre but the complainant has not come present to collect the same inspite of various calls made to him in this regard. We have carefully considered the contentions advanced by both the parties. Mobile handset was purchased by the complainant on 28.10.2014 and it was deposited with the service centre on 1.12.2014 and till date it is lying there. The opposite parties No.2 and 3 have not produced any written intimation sent to the complainant to the effect that his mobile handset has been repaired and he may collect the same. Even after service of legal notice, opposite parties No.2 and 3did not sent reply to the complainant or his counsel asking the complainant to collect his mobile handset. From the postal receipts Ex.C6 to Ex.C8 on record, it is evident that legal notices were dispatched on 10.1.2015. However, according to the opposite parties No.2 and 3, the mobile handset is lying in repaired condition.

8. So, in the above circumstances, the present complaint is partly accepted and opposite parties No.2 and 3 are directed to hand over the mobile handset of the complainant in fully repaired condition to him without any delay. The complainant is also directed to visit the service centre i.e opposite party No.2 to collect his mobile handset in fully repaired condition. In case, the mobile handset of the complainant has not been repaired so far then opposite parties No.2 and 3 shall replace the mobile handset of the complainant with new one of the same make and model or to refund its price. Further, the complainant is awarded Rs.3000/- in lump sum on account of compensation and litigation expenses. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia

08.07.2015 Member Member President