Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/15/265

Sunny Goel - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Panasonic India Pvt.Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

16 Jan 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

Consumer Complaint No.265 of  20.06.2015

Date of Decision          :   16.01.2017

 

Sunny Goel s/o Sh.Ramesh Goel r/o H.No.1469, Street No.5, Guru Nanak Colony, Near Gill Canal, Block-A, Ludhiana-141006.

….. Complainant

Versus 

1.M/s.Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd., Ist Floor, ABW Tower, Iffco Chowk, Sector-25, Gurgaon-122001, Haryana, India through its Managing Director.

2.M/s.Ahuja Electronics, Shop No.2, Mata Rani Chowk, Ludhiana-141008 through its Proprietor.

3.Smart Solutions (Panasonic Customer Care Service Centre), Near Clock Tower, Minerva Complex, IIIrd Floor, Ludhiana through its authorized signatory.

..…Opposite parties

 

 (COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986)

 

QUORUM:

SH.G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

SH.PARAM JIT SINGH BEWLI, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For Complainant           :         Sh.Raman Moldi, Advocate

For OP1 to OP3             :         Ex-parte.

 

PER G.K DHIR, PRESIDENT

 

1.                          Shorn off unnecessary details, case of the complainant is that he purchased Panasonic Mobile Eluga S having EMI No.356537060307833 from OP2 for a total sale consideration of Rs.10,600/- vide invoice No.R24900 dated 6.12.2014 by paying the said price. At the time of purchase, OP2 on behalf of OP1 assured the complainant regarding good quality of the above said mobile. Warranty of one year regarding the said mobile was given to the complainant. Ops assured the complainant that in case of any defect, the same will be repaired, but in case the same found not repairable, then the mobile will be replaced. This mobile was used for few days after purchase, but thereafter, it started creating problem. Complainant visited OP2 for disclosing about the problem in the mobile set. OP2 advised the complainant to visit OP3 for finding the solution and as such, the complainant visited OP3 on 9.1.2015. OP3 retained the said mobile set in their custody vide job sheet No.KJASPPB200115K4548. Complainant was called upon to return after 2-3 days, but when the complainant visited OP3, then it was disclosed as if sensor of the said mobile set is out of order, but OP3 assured to remove the defect. Thereafter, the complainant visited OP3 many times and even gave telephonic calls for finding the progress of the work  done on the mobile        set, but every time, OP3 procrastinated the matter. The said mobile set is lying in the custody of OP3 for last more than four months. Complainant requested OP3 either to replace the mobile set with new one or return his money, but OP3 flatly refused to do so. It is claimed that there is manufacturing defect in the mobile set, which has not been deliberately removed, due to which, mental tension, harassment and agony caused to the complainant, for which, compensation of Rs.50,000/- claimed. Even refund of Rs.10,600/- with interest @18% per annum claimed.

2.                In written statement filed by OP1 and OP3 jointly, it is claimed that the complaint is not maintainable because there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP. After replacement of the mobile set with Eluga U of the same model, the complainant received replaced mobile in April 2015 without any protest. Besides, it is claimed that the complainant has concealed the material facts from this Forum. It is admitted that the complainant purchased the mobile set, but after repair, he did not agree to receive the mobile set by claiming that he does not want the repaired set. Complainant put forth the demand for another set from OP and after accepting that request, the mobile set replaced as referred above. Each and every other averment of the complaint denied by praying for dismissal of the complaint.

3.                OP2 and OP3 are ex-parte in this case. OP3 was proceeded against ex-parte vide orders dated 27.7.2015, but written statement was filed on 10.9.2015 and as such, vide orders of 10.9.2015 itself, it was made clear that written statement filed by OP1 and OP3 will be deemed as written statement filed on behalf of OP1 only.

4.                Complainant to prove his case tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CA1 along with documents Ex.C1, Ex.C2, CW2/1 and Ex.CW2/B and even tendered affidavit of Ex.CB of Sh.Prince Goel and thereafter, his counsel closed the evidence.

5.                On the other hand, counsel for OP1 tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RA of Mr.Ajay Kumar, Authorized signatory of OP1 and thereafter, closed the evidence. Thereafter, an application for leading additional evidence for proving the receipt was filed on 6.5.2016 and that application was allowed vide orders of 24.10.2016 with compensatory costs. Counsel for OP1 suffered statement on 18.11.2016 that he will deposit the costs of Rs.2000/- and will tender the additional evidence on next date, but on the adjourned date of 16.12.2016, none turned up on behalf of OP1 despite wait and nor costs were deposited and nor additional evidence tendered. So, OP1 was proceeded against ex-parte, but opportunity was left open for addressing argument by OP1, but OP1 was debarred from leading additional evidence vide orders of 16.12.2016 in view of the non compliance of the earlier orders, vide which, permission for leading additional evidence granted.

6.                Today, Sh.Raman Moldi, Advocate appearing for complainant addressed arguments, but non appeared for OP1, despite wait and as such, OP1 proceeded against ex-parte.

7.                No documentary evidence produced on record by OP1 to establish that the mobile in question returned to the complainant, but the complainant along with Sh.Prince Goel tendered affidavits to show that the mobile in question was deposited with OP3 on 09.01.2015, who has retained the same in his custody vide job sheet, copy of which produced on record as Ex.C2. So oral and documentary evidence produced on record by the complainant establishes that despite deposit of the defective mobile set by the complainant with OP3, the same has not been returned. That is a major deficiency in service on the part of OP3. In view of the non return of the said mobile set by OP3, it is obvious that virtually manufacturing defect in the mobile may be there and that is why, after removing the defect, the mobile has not been returned to the complainant by OP3. That deposit of the mobile took place on 9.1.2015, but the mobile set in question purchased on 6.12.2014 through invoice Ex.C1 and as such this documentary evidence establishes that defect in the mobile in question surfaced just after four months of its purchase. Complainant was deprived of the services of the mobile due to retention of the same by OP3 w.e.f.9.1.2015 and as such, certainly the complainant has suffered a lot, particularly when response to the matter has not been given by Ops, despite repeated visits. OP3 is the service centre and OP2 is the seller, but OP1 is the manufacturer. On invoice Ex.C1 itself, it is mentioned that guaranty/warranty valid in service centre only, which means that manufacturer or service centre i.e. OP1 and OP3 responsible for providing warranty.

8.                It is the plea taken in the written statement of OP1 and also in affidavit Ex.RA of Mr.Ajay Kumar, authorized signatory of OP1, that mobile set purchased by the complainant was replaced with new one of the same model in April 2015 and question of that replacement arises only if there was manufacturing defect. So, these circumstances speak in volume as if the mobile set in question was having manufacturing defect. Despite application for production of additional evidence regarding return of the mobile set to the complainant in April 2015, no additional evidence has been adduced and as such, the same reflects as if plea taken regarding replacement of the mobile is absolutely incorrect. Refund of the price in our view must not be ordered merely because the complainant has purchased the mobile because warranty provides for replacement in the first instance only.

9.                Therefore, as a sequel of the above discussion, complaint allowed in terms that OP1 and OP3 will hand over a new mobile set of worth of Rs.10,600/- in place of old one to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. As the defective mobile is lying with OP3 and as such the complainant has to do nothing on his part. Compensation for mental harassment and agony of Rs.4000/-(Rupees Four thousand only) and litigation expenses of Rs.2000/-(Rupees Two thousand only) more allowed in favour of the complainant and against OP1 and OP3, whose liability held as joint and several.        Compliance of direction of paying awarded compensation and litigation expenses be made by OP1 and OP3 within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. However, complaint against OP2 is dismissed because guaranty/warranty to be provided by the manufacturer or the service centre as per the terms of Ex.C1. Copies of order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules.

10.                        File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

          (Param Jit Singh Bewli)                (G.K. Dhir)

                Member                                     President

Announced in Open Forum

Dated:16.01.2017

Gurpreet Sharma.