Delhi

New Delhi

CC/646/2014

Neetu - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

19 Feb 2019

ORDER

 

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

                                           (DISTT. NEW DELHI),

                                                   ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P.ESTATE,

                                                                                NEW DELHI-110001

 

Case No.C.C./646/2014                                                                                                      Dated:

 

In the matter of:

NEETU

C/o Kumar Chandra & Associates

196 J, 2^nd Floor, Ramesh Market

East of Kailash, New Delhi-110001                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  …Complainant

                                               

                                                                                 Versus

 

 

1. PANASONIC INDIA PVT LTD.

Through its Managing Director

                1^st Floor, ABW Tower, IFFCO Chowk,

               Sector 25, Gurgaon-122001 Haryana

2. SHIVAM COMMUNICATION

R-22, Shop No. 3, Khaneja Complex

Shakarpur, Delhi-110092

3. CELL CARE

D-30. 2^nd Floor, Dayananda Block,

Old Parparganj Road, Opposite Jain Mandir

                  Nirman Vihar, Shakarpur, Delhi-110092                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                ….Opposite Parties

 

 

 

 

ARUN KUMAR ARYA-PRESIDENT

 

                                                                        ORDER

 

1. The complainant purchased the mobile phone bearing IMEI No. 357338051145475, Model No. T-31, from the Opposite Party No.2.  The complainant paid Rs. 7400/- for the above handset against the bill bearing No.9050 dated 15.05.2014.  The representative of Opposite Party No. 2 also provided 1 year guarantee for the above handset.  Copy of the bill is annexed herewith as  Annexure C-1. 
2. That after few days the above handset became faulty i.e., Voice Disturbance, Signal Problem and battery backup was very less. On 05.06.2014 the complainant contacted to the OP No. 2, the OP No.2 kept the handset with assurances that they would try to replace the hand through Opposite Party No. 1 and advised the complainant to come up after a week.
3. That after a week the complainant contacted the opposite party no. 2 but the OP no. 2 showed its inability to provide the phone in question and told the complainant that the phone in question can be collected after 8-10 days.
4.  After about 15 days, the complainant contacted to the OP no. 2 who delivered  the handset to the complainant and stated that the opposite party no. 1 refused  to replace the same and advised to contact the opposite party no. 3. The opposite party no.2 without issuing the job card returned the handset immediately stating that there is no defect in the handset. After much persuasion with the opposite parties the handset did not work properly nor it was replaced, hence, a complaint against opposite parties were filed. The respondent no. 1 appeared in the Court and filed written statements but other parties did not appear.
5. OP-1 submitted that complaint was liable to be dismissed as there was no deficiency in service on their part.  It is submitted that the name of the complainant is not mentioned on the invoice and there were no signatures of the said invoice.  It is denied that the complainant had purchased a mobile phone as alleged. The answering OP stated that it is not aware of the alleged inter-se dealing with the complainant and the OP no. 2.  It is stated that the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Complainant in its affidavit in evidence reasserted its petition made in the complaint and claimed deficiency on part of the opposite parties.
6. Opposite party no. 1 was proceeded ex-parte on 24.10.2016 by learned predecessor Bench of this Forum. The forum has gone through the arguments of AR of the complainant and perused the record. The Forum has perused, the copy of the bill/invoice which is in the name of the complainant dated 15.05.2014 squarely giving the number of invoice and book number for a sum of Rs. 7400/-. The challenge of OP-1 has no ground as complaint purchased the phone from OP-2 who never appeared in the court and did not make any defence. The evidence filed on behalf of the complainant remained unrebutted as no evidence in rebuttal was filed by the OP’s. The Forum has no option but to rely upon the evidence filed by complainant which remained uncontested and unchallenged.

Keeping in view of facts and circumstances the complainant, the Forum is of the considered view that there is deficiency on part of opposite parties and accordingly direct as under.

1. OP no.1 is directed to make the payments of Rs. 7400/- to the complainant within 30 days failing which it shall be liable to pay our interest of 8% till payment.

Complainant is directed to handover the defected phone to the manufacturer after receipt of the above said amount.

Copy of the order may be forwarded to the parties to the case free of cost as statutorily required. 

Announced in open Forum on 21/02/2019

The orders be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in.

File be consigned to record room.

 

 

 

                  (ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

                             PRESIDENT

 

 

 

          (NIPUR CHANDNA)                                                    

                                                                               MEMBER