BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.284 of 2016
Date of Instt. 12.07.2016
Date of Decision: 10.10.2017
Sachin Jain S/o Sh. Kashmiri Lal R/o NK-11, Daulat Ram Street Bazar Nahrian, Jalandhar City.
..........Complainant
Versus
1. M/s Panasonic India (P) Ltd. 1st Floor, ABW Tower, IFFCO Chowk, Sector 25 Gurgaon-122001 Haryana Through its Managing Director/Director/Director(s)/Authorized personnel.
2. M/s Gopal Telecom Authorized service centre EH.198 Civil Line 1st Floor Nirmal Complex, Near Namdev Chowk, Jalandhar.
3. M/s Chadha Mobile House Pvt. Ltd Mobile House, Phagwara Gate Near Bhagat Singh Chowk, Jalandhar City through its Managing Director/Director(s)/Authorized personnel.
….… Opposite parties
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Sh. Karnail Singh (President)
Sh. Parminder Sharma (Member)
Present: Sh. Robin Budhiraja, Adv Counsel for the complainant.
Sh. Vishal Chaudhary, Adv Counsel for the OP No.1 and 2.
OP No.3 exparte.
Order
Karnail Singh (President)
1. The instant complaint presented by the complainant, wherein alleged that the OP No.1 is engaged in manufacturing and sales of mobile phones and OP No.2 is the authorized service centre of OP No.1. That the complainant was in need of one mobile handset as such, he approached OP No.3 and the sale persons of the OP No.3 allured the complainant to purchase the handset manufactured by OP No.1 and being allured by the complainant regarding the best working, features, long life battery etc. decided to purchase one touch screen handset smart phone T 11 and the same was purchased by him, vide invoice No.63259 dated 22.02.2014 amounting to Rs.7681.76p/- alongwith VAT and surcharge totaling Rs.8400/-. The said handset was having no problem in its working and the complainant was satisfied that he had made no wrong decision in buying the said handset. Then complainant started feeling that the battery backup of the said handset is reducing day by day. With the passage of time, the battery life of the said handset reduced drastically and ultimately complainant had to keep the phone charger with him all the times. Then complainant visited the shop of OP No.3 and OP No.3 asked the complainant to visit the office of the OP No.2, who is the authorized service station of OP No.1. The complainant went to the office of OP No.2/Service Centre and told that there is a problem in the phone and it requires a replacement of the battery and asked the complainant that the OP No.2 will arrange new battery for his mobile and it will take about 10-15 days. After 10-15 days, complainant again went to the office of OP No.3, then he was told that the company has stopped manufacturing this model number handset and as such, the battery will also not be available to him as the manufacturing of the said battery has also been stopped. One of the employees of OP No.2 told the complainant that it is the general practice of OP No.1 to launch a new mobile set and after some time the production of the said mobile set and its accessories is stopped so that even if the mobile set is working fine, then due to lack of accessories like battery the customer be forced to throw the set and purchase a new handset and in this way the mobile companies like OP No.1 play fraud with the customers. The complainant is also the victim of such a practice adopted by OPs and as such the OPs have adopted illegal and unfair trade practice and accordingly the instant complaint was filed with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to refund the price of the handset and further be directed to make payment of Rs.20,000/- as compensation/damages and Rs.10,000/- as legal expenses.
2. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs but despite service OP No.3 did not come present and ultimately, OP No.3 was proceeded against exparte, whereas OP No.1 and 2 appeared through their counsel and filed a joint reply, whereby contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable in the present form as the same is based upon wrong, false and frivolous facts and further alleged that except of those that there are expressly admitted herein under the OPs denies any and all allegations and claims that are contained or raised in the complaint. The complainant is not entitled to any claim or to get any relief claimed therein. The complaint in reply is not maintainable in law or on the true facts and the same is liable to be dismissed and further alleged that the complainant has failed to disclose all the facts before this Forum, which if disclosed would have indicated that there is no cause of action in favour of the complainant against the answering OP. The facts narrated by the complainant have been represented in a misleading manner. The correct and factual position is as follows:-
As per the information and record available with the OPs, the complainant has purchased the handset on 22.02.2014 and from that date, the handset was working properly and there was no defect occurred in the handset but the complainant in order to harass and pressurize the OPs has filed the present complaint as the present complaint is time barred because the complainant has filed the present complaint after the expiry of two years from the cause of action i.e. dated 22.02.2014, when the complainant purchased the handset and only on this score, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed with heavy costs and further alleged that it is also necessary to mention here that the complainant never visited the service centre of the answering OP till today from the date of the purchase of the handset and further averred that the complainant has no grievance or valid cause of action qua the answering OP. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant purchased the mobile set but the fact in regard to occurring any problem in the mobile set is categorically denied and further the other allegations as made in the complaint are also categorically denied and lastly prayed that the complaint of the complainant is without merits and the same may be dismissed.
3. In order to prove the case of the complainant, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of the complainant Ex.C1 alongwith some documents i.e. Ex.C2 Legal Notice, Ex.C3 Receipts and Ex.C4 Retail Invoice and closed the evidence.
4. Similarly, counsel for the OP No.1 and 2 tendered into evidence duly sworn affidavit Ex.OP/A and closed the evidence.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also gone through the case file very minutely.
6. After considering the over all factors as narrated in the pleadings of both the parties, whereby it reveals that the factum in regard to purchase a mobile on 22.02.2014, for amounting to Rs.8400/-, from OP No.3 is not denied by the OPs. It is admitted that the complainant purchased the mobile set on 22.02.2014 and in the complaint, the complainant has not mentioned the date, when first time any problem occurred in the mobile set, that date is very much necessary and important for reckoning the period of limitation. So, it means that the complainant himself cleverly did not mention the date of occurring any problem in the handset, so when situation is so, then we can take a date of purchase as the date of occurring cause of action and if we take the date of purchase i.e. 22.02.2014 and as per law, the complaint can be filed within the period of two years from the date of accrual of the cause of action, it means that the complainant has right to file a complaint on or before 22.02.2016, but the instant complaint filed by the complainant on 12.07.2016, means after the expiry of two years. So, it is clearly established that the complaint of the complainant is time-barred and the objection raised by the OP to this effect is established.
7. Apart from above, on merits, it is the primary duty of the complainant to bring on the file any cogent and convincing evidence to establish that there is a manufacturing defect in the mobile set but in order to establish this fact, the complainant has not got inspected the mobile from any technical laboratory or even the complainant has miserably failed to bring on the file Job Sheet, issued by the OP No.2/Service Centre of the OP No.1, if virtually, the complainant approached to the OP No.2/Service Centre as alleged in the complaint, then service centre must had issued a Job Sheet to the complainant, non placing a Job Sheet on the file itself established that the complainant never approached to the service centre as alleged by the OP in the preliminary objection. So, under these circumstances, the complainant himself failed to establish on the file that there was any manufacturing or any defect in the mobile set, if so then, the complaint of the complainant fails and accordingly, the same is dismissed with no order of cost. Parties will bear their own cost. The complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
8. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.
Dated Parminder Sharma Karnail Singh
10.10.2017 Member President
