| ORDER | BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR. Consumer Complaint No. 525 of 2015 Date of Institution: 24.08.2015 Date of Decision: 08.03.2016 Rajeev (aged 25 years) son of Sh.Amarjeet, resident of House No. 44, Gali No.2, Shaheed Udham Singh Colony, Chahal Road, Amritsar. Complainant Versus - M/s.Mobile Plaza, Hall Bazar, Amritsar through its proprietor/ partner/ authorized person to receive the summons.
- M/s.Satya Daya Timless Shop, Pandit Din Dayal Upadhaya Shopping Complex, Shop No. 18, 28 Amritsar through its Prop/ partner/ authorized representative to receive the summons.
- M/s.Panasonic India Limited, 12th Floor, Ambience Island NH8 Gurgaon-122002 (Haryana) through its Prop/ Partner/ authorized officer to receive the summons.
Opposite Party Complaint under section 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Present: For the Complainant: In person. For Opposite Party No.1: Sh.Deepinder Singh, Advocate For Opposite Parties No.2 and 3: Sh.Sanjeet Singh, Advocate. Quorum: Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member Mr.Anoop Sharma, Member Order dictated by: Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President. - Present complaint has been filed by Sh.Rajeev under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that he purchased one Mobile Set Panasonic P55 IMEI No. 356536060090126 vide bill No. 13217 dated 1.1.2015 for a sum of Rs.9700/- from Opposite Party No.1. Complainant alleges that since 1.1.2015 i.e. date of purchase of Mobile Set in question upto 9.7.2015, said Mobile Set of the complainant remained in order and on 10.7.2015 it became out of order as the touch system was not working and then the complainant approached Opposite Party No.2-Authorised Service Centre as per the directions of Opposite Party No.1 regarding the defect in the Mobile Set in question. Opposite Party No.2 prepared job sheet bearing No. KJASPB154715P112241 dated 10.7.2015 and kept the Mobile Set in question with them for 15-20 days and after 20 days when the complainant went to Opposite Party No.2-Authorised Service Centre, they asked the complainant to wait for 5 days more as the touch has not come and after that the complainant went to Opposite Party No.2-Authorised Service Centre, but again Opposite Party No.2-Authorised Service Centre told that the touch has not come and this practice continued upto 18th August, 2015. Lastly, when the complainant again approached Opposite Party No.2-Authorised Service Centre on 19.8.2015, they directed the complainant that he should take back his Mobile Set as it is not possible for them to repair the Mobile Set of the complainant as the touch has not come and it will take more than 9 months and it is beyond repair. In this way, the Opposite Party No.2-Authorised Service Centre is lingering on the matter on one pretext or the other. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service, complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite parties to refund a sum of Rs.9700/- i.e. the costs of Mobile Set in question alongwith interest @ 24 per annum from the date of purchase till the date of payment. Compensation and litigation expenses were also demanded.
- On notice, Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that the complainant could not point out any manufacturing defect or produce any documentary evidence on record with the Opposite Parties that the Mobile Set in question have any manufacturing defect, so the Mobile Set can not be ordered to be replaced and no case is made out for refund of the price. The complainant approached Opposite Party No.2-Authorised Service Centre for change of Touch Break after more than six months from the date of purchase of the Mobile Set in question. At the time of taking the Mobile Set from the complainant, Opposite Party No.2-Authorised Service Centre narrated to the complainant that the said part is not available in the market and it will take minimum two months or may be more depend upon the availability of the said part in the market and the complainant gave his oral consent and deposited his said Mobile Set before Opposite Party No.2-Authorised Service Centre and then the complainant left the office of Opposite Party No.2-Authorised Service Centre. The complainant approached Opposite Party No.2-Authorised Service Centre after twenty days for collection of his Mobile Set and the Opposite Party No.2 requested the complainant that the said part was not available in the market nor have the company stock and till date due to non availability of such part, if the complainant needs urgency of Mobile Set, then Opposite Parties are ready to hand over the standby Mobile Set to the complainant, but the complainant refused to accept the standby Mobile Set. On 19.8.2015 the complainant approached Opposite Party No.2-Authorised Service Centre and asked to return his Mobile Set without change of touch and the Opposite Party No.2-Authorised Service Centre returned the Mobile Set in question to the complainant on his demand after taking his undertaking and signature on the job sheets. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
- Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C1 alongwith documents Ex.C2 and Ex.C3 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
- Opposite Parties tendered into evidence the copy of job sheet Ex.OP2/1, copy of bill Ex.OP2/2 and closed the evidence on behalf of the Opposite Parties.
- We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties; arguments advanced by the complainant and ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties.
- From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by the parties, it stand fully proved on record that the complainant purchased one Mobile Set Panasonic P55 IMEI No. 356536060090126 from Opposite Party No.1 manufactured by Opposite Party No.3 vide bill No. 13217 dated 1.1.2015 for a sum of Rs.9700/- (Ex.C2). Complainant submitted that the Mobile Set in question remained in order upto 9.7.2015 whereas on 10.7.2015 it became out of order as its touch system was not working. The complainant approached Opposite Party No.2-Authorised Service Centre of Opposite Party No.3 vide job sheet bearing No. KJASPB154715P112241 dated 10.7.2015 (Ex.C3) and Opposite Party No.2 kept the Mobile Set in question with them for about one month and ultimately, returned the Mobile Set in question to the complainant on 19.8.2015 with the remarks that spare part of the defective part of the Mobile Set in question is not arranged nor the Opposite Party No.2-Authorised Service Centre replaced the Mobile Set of the complainant with new one.
- Plea of the Opposite Party No.2-Authorised Service Centre that the complainant could not point out manufacturing defect in the Mobile Set in question and that Opposite Party No.2 stated to the complainant that spare parts for the defective parts of the Mobile Set in question shall be arranged in about 2 months, but the complainant get the Mobile Set back after about one month, so there is no deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party No.2 qua the complainant is not tenable because Opposite Party No.2-Authorised Service Centre kept the Mobile Set in question for one month and nine days i.e. from 10.7.2015 to 19.8.2015, but could not repair the Mobile Set of the complainant. All this shows that Opposite Party No.2-Authorised Service Centre failed to repair the Mobile Set of the complainant, may be due to non availability of spare parts to replace the defective parts of the Mobile Set in question. All this fully proves that Opposite Party No.2-Authorised Service Centre has failed to repair the Mobile Set of the complainant, even by keeping the Mobile Set in question with them for more than one month. As such, this Forum has come to the conclusion that Mobile Set of the complainant is not repairable and the Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 are liable to replace the Mobile Set of the complainant with new one of same make and model.
- Resultantly, we allow the complaint of the complainant and Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 are directed to replace the Mobile Set of the complainant with new one of same make and model or in the alternative to refund the price of the Mobile Set in question i.e. Rs.9700/-, to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum on the price amount of the Mobile Set i.e. Rs.9700/-, from the date of filing of the complaint till the payment is made to the complainant. Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 are also directed to pay the costs of litigation to the complainant to the tune of Rs.1000/-. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.
Dated: 08.03.2016. (Bhupinder Singh) President hrg (Anoop Sharma) (Kulwant Kaur Bajwa) Member Member | |
