BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PONDICHERRY

C.C.No10/2016

Dated this the 19^th day of August 2016.

(Date of Institution: 04.04.2016)

N. Narasingam, son of N. Nagarajan

No.32, Gangaimuthu Mariamman Koil Street

Dobigana, Maduvupet, Pondicherry – 8.

                                                ….     Complainant

Vs.

1. M/s Panasonic India Pvt Ltd.,

    Registered Address at No.88, 6^th Floor         

    "SPIC Building Annexe"                

    Mount Road, Gundy, Chennai – 600 032.

2. M/s Guna Electronics                             

    Authorised Service Centre of Panasonic                           

    No.245, Thiruvalluvar Salai, 1^st Floor,     

    Near Kumaran Gas Agencies, Puducherry - 5

3. M/s Friend's Mobile                                  

    No.117, Anna Salai,          

    Puducherry – 605 001.

                             .                                     ….     Opposite Parties

BEFORE:

          THIRU.A.ASOKAN, B.A., B.L.,

          PRESIDENT 

Thiru V.V. STEEPHEN, B.A., LL.B.,

           MEMBER

FOR THE COMPLAINANT            :  Thiru L. Sathish, Advocate  

FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTIES     :  Ex parte

O R  D  E  R

(By Thiru. A. ASOKAN, President)

This is a complaint filed by the complainant under Sections 12 and 13  of  the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying to direct the Opposite Parties either jointly and severally to refund a sum of Rs.13,000/- which is the value of the defective mobile phone purchased; pay a sum of Rs.75,000/- as compensation for the mental agony, trauma, stress and duress suffered by the complainant and for cost of Rs.5,000/- towards this proceedings.

2.  The case of the complainant is as follows:

The complainant purchased a Panasonic Eluga L Blue Mobile bearing IMEI No. 359495060173886 from the third opposite party on 21.07.2015 vide invoice No. 5147 for  Rs.13,000/-.  The said mobile phone is manufactured by the first opposite party and the second opposite is the authorised service centre of first opposite party.  From the date of purchase, the mobile phone had multiple problems like excessive heating, hanging, extremely slow internet connectivity despite excellent net signal, contracts not getting displayed properly, going blank completely and then reviving once switched off and on.  There were also other frequent problems.  The complaint further stated that he gave the mobile phone for servicing to the second opposite party within a month of its purchased but they returned the same stating that there was no defects and the complainant needs time to acclimatize with the phone.  Since the above complaints persisted, on 4.11.2015 the complainant gave the mobile phone for service once again to the second  opposite party and received the job sheet.  After repeated enquiry, it was informed by the second opposite party that the mobile phone has serious manufacturing defect and therefore, it has been sent to first opposite party for necessary action.  The complainant believed that the mobile phone is with the custody of the second opposite party only  The complainant further stated that he had issued a legal notice to the opposite parties on 31.12.2015 for their total indifference and lack of attention shown in servicing the mobile phone and seeking refund of his money paid for a defective mobile and for compensation.  The said notice was received by the first and third opposite parties, but the second opposite party returned it as unclaimed.  The first and third opposite parties did not reply for the same and therefore, the opposite parties shown carelessness, negligence and total indifference towards the complainant as they did not address the grievance of the complainant.  Hence, this complaint.

4. The opposite parties remained absent and were set exparte.

5. On the side of the complainant, she has chosen to examine herself as CW.1 and marked Exs.C1 to C5.

6.  Points for determination are:

1. Whether the Complainant is the  Consumer?
2. Whether the opposite parties attributed negligence and deficiency in service?
3. To what relief the complainant is entitled for?

7.  Point No.1:

          The complainant purchased one  Panasonic Eluga L Blue Mobile bearing IMEI No. 359495060173886 from the third opposite party manufactured by first opposite party on 21.07.2015 vide invoice No. 5147 for  Rs.13,000/- as per  Ex.C1.    Hence, the complainant is the consumer.

8.       Point No.2:

          The complainant was examined as CW1 and marked Exs.C1 to C5.  The Opposite Parties were duly served, but called absent and set ex parte.  The complainant submits that he has purchased one Panasonic Eluga L Blue cell phone from the third opposite party on 21.07.2015 for Rs.13,000/-.   Ex.C1 is the photocopy of original invoice issued by the third Opposite Party for the alleged purchase made by the complainant.    The complainant further alleged that right from the date of purchase, the said cell phone had the following problems such as, excessive heating, hanging, extremely slow internet connectivity despite excellent net signal, contacts not getting displayed properly, going blank completely and then reviving once switched off and on etc.  Hence, the complainant handed over the mobile phone to the second opposite party for carrying out necessary repairs / service, but the second opposite party returned the same stating that the mobile phone had no problems.  Since the above said problems continues, the complainant on 04.11.2015 handed over the cell phone to the second opposite party for service vide Ex.C2 photocopy of job card with the complaints of heating, hanging, contact not showing and net slow.   But, the second  Opposite Party has stated that the mobile phone has serious manufacturing defect and therefore, it has been sent to the first opposite party.  Since the mobile phone was not returned to the complainant even after two months, the complainant issued a legal notice Ex.C3 to the opposite parties.  The first and third opposite parties received the same vide Ex.C4 acknowledgement cards, however, the second opposite party returned as unclaimed vide Ex.C5.  It is alleged by the complainant that due to non-return of cell phone, he could not make emergency calls and also cannot make bill payments through net banking etc and therefore, he suffered both physically and mentally  due to the negligent act and deficiency of service by the opposite parties and the same should be compensated.

From the above facts and evidence adduced by the complainant, it is clear from Ex.C1 that the complaint alleged mobile phone was purchased by the complainant from the third Opposite Party on 21.07.2015 for Rs.13,000/-.   Further, on perusal of Ex.C2, the Job Sheet dated 04.11.2015 issued by the second Opposite Party, it is found that the said mobile phone was having problems of heating, hanging, contact not showing, new slow etc.  The purpose for which the mobile phone purchased by the complainant was not served.  But, it gave mental agony, loss and sufferings to the complainant.  It is alleged by the complainant that when he reported the defect for the first time, the second opposite party stated that the mobile phone was in perfect condition  and the complainant needs time to become accustomed.  But, when the complainant returned it for the second time with same complaint, the second opposite party could not rectify the same and stated that it has serious manufacturing deffect and it has to be sent to the manufacturer.  They have not replaced the unit and taken up the issue with the manufacturer.     To refute the contentions of the complainant and establish that the cell phone is in good working condition, the Opposite Parties did not turn up before this Forum to let in evidence even though they have received summons from this Forum.  The above act of the Opposite Parties clearly establish the complainant's case and hence, this Forum has come to the conclusion that the Complainant has proved the negligent act and deficiency in service.  Thus, the complainant is entitled for the claim and Opposite Parties are liable for their negligent act, deficiency in service.

10.     Point No.3:

          In view of the decision taken in point No.2, this complaint is hereby allowed and the Opposite Parties are directed to 

1. Return the sum of Rs.13,000/- towards the cost of the mobile phone to the complainant;
2. Pay a sum of Rs.10,000/-  as compensation to the complainant for the deficiency in service.
3. To pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as cost of the proceedings.

              The above said order should be complied within two months from the date of receipt of this order.

Dated this the 19^th day of August 2016.

1. ASOKAN)

PRESIDENT

(V.V. STEEPHEN)

MEMBER

COMPLAINANTS' WITNESS:  

CW.1          19.05.2016           N. Narasingam         

OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS:  Nil

COMPLAINANTS' EXHIBITS:

OPPOSITE PARTY'S EXHIBITS: Nil

LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS:      Nil

1. ASOKAN)

PRESIDENT

(V.V. STEEPHEN)

     MEMBER