| ORDER | BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR. Consumer Complaint No.77 of 2015 Date of Institution: 29-01-2015 Date of Decision: 24-06-2015 Harjit Singh son of Randhir Singh, resident of VPO Khiala Kalan, Tehsil: Ajnala, District Amritsar. Complainant Versus - M/s.New Sainik Telecom, Awwa Shopping Complex, Sadhu Wali Cantt, Sri Gangangar, through its partner/ proprietor.
- M/s.Panasonic Smart Phone (Karbonn Mobiles) Cooper Road, Shop No. 201-202, Amritsar through its partner/ proprietor.
- M/s.Panasonic Customer Care Service at D-172, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-I, New Delhi-110020 through its Manger/ Authorized Person.
Opposite Parties Complaint under section 11 and 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. Present: For the Complainant: Sh. Daljit Singh, attorney of complainant. For the Opposite Party No.1: Given Up For Opposite Parties No.2 & 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.Harjit Singh under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that he purchased a mobile set P.61, IMEI No.354532060090044 from Opposite Party No.1 vide bill No. 2663 dated 13.8.2014 for Rs.14,500/- with one year warranty. Opposite Party No.2 is the authorized service centre whereas Opposite Party No.3 is the manufacturing company of the mobile set in question. Complainant alleges that after some time of its purchase, the said mobile set became out of order and stopped functioning properly. The complainant approached Opposite Party No.2 and brought to their notice the defects/ problems in the mobile set and they checked it and demanded Rs.5500/- from the complainant for its repair, stating that the major part of the same was to be replaced which was not within warranty. As such, the complainant paid Rs.1000/- in advance and the balance was to be paid at the time of its complete satisfactory repair and proper functioning. Thereafter, Daljit Singh, representative of the complainant visited Opposite Party No.2 number of times, but they put off the matter on one pretext or the other. Since 8.11.2014, the mobile set is lying with Opposite Party No.2 against job sheet issued to the complainant. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service, complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite parties to hand over the mobile set in question in a proper working condition, or to replace the same with new one or to refund its total price alongwith interest. Compensation and litigation expenses were also demanded.
- Opposite Party No.1 was given up by the complainant vide his statement dated 12.3.2015 recorded separately before this Forum and the order dated 12.3.2015 in this regard, was passed by this Forum.
- Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 appeared and filed joint written version in which it was submitted that the complainant approached the Opposite Party No.2 for change of the Touch Panel of the mobile set in question and the complainant was told that this part was not covered under the warranty period and he has to pay the cost of said part of Rs.5500/-. The complainant agreed the same and was ready to pay the cost of said part and paid Rs.1000/- as advance on the same day and balance amount of Rs.4500/- was to be paid at the time of taking back the mobile set in question after replacement of its Touch Panel. At the time of taking the mobile set from the complainant, it was narrated to the complainant that it will take minimum two months or more depending upon the availability of the said parts in the market and complainant became ready to the same and handed over the mobile set to Opposite Party No.2. Thereafter, the complainant visited the Opposite Party No.2 and the Opposite Party No.2 requested the complainant that his set has not returned back till date due to non availability of such parts and if he needed urgency, then the Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 are ready to provide him stand by mobile set till the mobile set of the complainant is not returned back, but the complainant refused to take the stand-by mobile set from Opposite Party No.2 and left the service centre and then moved for legal action to claim his illegal demand. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
- Sh.Daljit Singh attorney of the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of the complainant Ex.C1 alongwith documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C4 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
- Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Sahil Arora Ex.Op2/1, affidavit of Sh.Ajay Kumar Ex.Op3/1 and closed the evidence on behalf of the Opposite Parties No.2 & 3.
- We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties; arguments advanced by the attorney of the complainant and ld.counsel for Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for Opposite Parties No.2 & 3.
- From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by the parties, it is clear that the complainant purchased mobile set Panasonic P.61 from Opposite Party No.1 vide bill dated 13.8.2014 (Ex.C4) for Rs.14,500/- with one year warranty. Complainant alleges that after 2-3 months of its purchase, the said mobile set became out of order and was not properly functioning. The complainant approached Opposite Party No.2 i.e. authorized service centre of Panasonic company vide job sheet Ex.C3 who checked the mobile set and demanded Rs.5500/- from the complainant for its repair as major part of the same was to be replaced which was not within the warranty. The complainant paid Rs.1000/- in advance to Opposite Party No.2 on 8.11.2014 and handed over the mobile set to Opposite Party No.2. Since then, the Opposite Party No.2 did not return the mobile set to the complainant after repair despite so many visits and requests made by the complainant to Opposite Party No.2. Attorney of the complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties No.2 and 3.
- Whereas the case of the Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 is that the complainant approached the Opposite Party No.2 i.e. authorized service centre for repair of the mobile set. On inspection, it was found that Touch Panel of the mobile set of the complainant was broken and it was told to the complainant that this part is not covered under the warranty and the complainant has to pay the costs of Touch Panel of the mobile set in question worth Rs.5500/-. The complainant agreed and he paid Rs.1000/- as advance on the same date i.e. 8.11.2014 as per job sheet Ex.C4 and agreed to pay the balance amount of Rs.4500/- on receipt of the mobile set after repair. The mobile set was sent to the company and the same was not received back from the company till date due to non availability of such parts. The Opposite Party No.2 gave offer to the complainant to take stand-by mobile set from the Opposite Party No.2 till his mobile set is not received back from the company after repair, but the complainant refused to accept this offer. However, Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 filed written arguments in which they stated that mobile set is with counsel for Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 and he is ready to hand over the same to the complainant, subject to payment of balance amount of Rs.4500/- i.e. balance costs of Touch Panel to Opposite Parties No.2 & 3. Ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties No.2 & 3.
- From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that the complainant purchased mobile set Panasonic P.61 vide bill dated 13.8.2014 (Ex.C4) from Opposite Party No.1 for a sum of Rs.14,500/-. Said mobile set became defective and the complainant approached Opposite Party No.2 i.e. authorized service centre of Panasonic Company who examined the mobile set in question and found that the Touch Panel of the mobile set of the complainant was broken. The complainant was told that said part of the mobile set is not covered under the warranty and the complainant would have to pay Rs.5500/- for the replacement of Touch Panel of the mobile set of the complainant. The complainant paid Rs.1000/- to Opposite Party No.2 in advance on 8.11.2014 as is evident from job sheet Ex.C3 issued by Opposite Party No.2 and he agreed to pay the balance payment of Rs.4500/- to Opposite Party No.2 on receipt of the mobile set after repair from Opposite Party No.2 and he handed over the mobile set to Opposite Party No.2 on 8.11.2014. Since then, the mobile set is lying with Opposite Party No.2, but the Opposite Party No.2 could not return the mobile set of the complainant after repair. Plea of the Opposite Party No.2 is that they sent the mobile set of the complainant to company i.e. Opposite Party No.3, but the same has not been received back from the company as the said part of the mobile set of the complainant i.e. Touch Panel is not available. All this shows that mobile set of the complainant is not repairable because of non availability of its spare parts with the company i.e. Opposite Party No.3 who manufactured the mobile set in question. The complainant paid Rs.1000/- in advance to Opposite Party No.2 on 8.11.2014 and this fact has been admitted by Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 in their written version and the complainant agreed to pay the balance payment of Rs.4500/- to Opposite Party No.2 on receipt of mobile set in question after repair. Plea of the Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 that mobile set is with ld.counsel for Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 and he is ready to hand over the same, subject to payment of balance amount of Rs.4500/-, is not tenable because the ld.counsel for Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 could not produce the mobile set in question in the Forum to hand over the same to the complainant on payment of balance amount of Rs.4500/-. All this shows that mobile set of the complainant could not be repaired by Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 because of non availability of spare parts i.e. Touch Panel of the mobile set in question and the mobile set is still lying with Opposite Party No.2 since 8.11.2014 i.e. for the last more than 7 months and as such, the complainant is suffering harassment due to deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties No.2 & 3.
- Resultantly, this complaint is disposed of with the directions to Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 to hand over the mobile set of the complainant fully repaired to the satisfaction of the complainant on receipt of Rs.4500/- i.e. balance amount, within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 are directed to refund the balance amount of the price of mobile set i.e. Rs.14500/- after deducting Rs.4500/- i.e. price of Touch Panel within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 shall pay balance amount of the mobile set i.e. Rs.10,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the complaint till the payment is made to the complainant. Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 are also directed to pay the costs of litigation to the tune of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant. 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: 24-06-2015. (Bhupinder Singh) President hrg (Anoop Sharma) (Kulwant Kaur Bajwa) Member Member | |
