By  Sri.M.P.Chandrakumar.,  Member :   

                    The case of the complainant is that he had purchased one Panasonic T.41 (8 G.B.) phone with one year warranty from the third opposite party on 14-01-15, on payment of Rs.6590/-.The 1^st opposite party is the manufacturer and the second opposite party is the importer. Within 2-3 months after purchase, the handset was showing complaints that the keypad is appearing in the screen almost all time. Hence it is not possible to attend the incoming calls. Being a doctor, the complainant suffered many difficulties and hardships. As directed by the third opposite party, the complainant entrusted the mobile phone with the fourth opposite party .The 4thopposite party, who issued job card, informed that the handset will have to be send to Bangalore for repair and it will take a minimum of 30 days .Later, the 4^th opposite party informed that the defect rectified and the handset is ready for delivery. However, from the next day after delivery, the handset started showing the same complaint. Again, the complainant approached the 4^th opposite party and another job card issued, which also took more or less 30 days for delivery. The same thing repeated 6 times. On 4^th delivery, the 4^th opposite party delivered a black color handset instead of the complainant’s white handset. Its memory was only 6 GB, instead of the complainant’s 8 GB. They made to believe that it was a new handset. But, within one or two days, this handset also started showing the same complaint. Later, the complainant realized that on its battery, IMEI no of the complainant’s old handset is written, while settings show another IMEI no. Thus, the 4^th opposite party was cheating the complainant stating that it was a new handset. The complainant further states that on the   on the 6^th delivery, the complainant found that the handset was in a tampered condition. So, he refused to accept the phone and demanded a new phone. The 4^th opposite party replied harshly that they are not prepared to do any other repair work. This caused much mental agony to the complainant. few days afterwards, the 4^th opposite party asked the complainant to get the phone box with charger, head set etc as if they were ready to give a new handset. But, till this time , the 4^th opposite party has not replaced the handset. Since the action is a clear deficiency of service, the complainant issued lawyer notice to all opposite parties .Even though the notice was accepted by all , no reply  has been received so far from any of the opposite parties so far  nor the complainant’s grievance redressed. Hence the CC filed to direct the opposite parties to repay Rs.6590/-, the cost of the phone with interest from 14-01-15, the date of purchase, in addition to compensation and cost.

                   2. Only OP3, the retail dealer has filed the version, the others being set ex-parte.  In the version filed, OP3 admits the purchase of the phone from them. The opposite party states that immediately when the complainant approached with the complaints to the phone, the opposite party directed the complainant to approach the service center, at once. Accordingly, it is learned that the complainant had handed over the phone to the 4^th  opposite party for rectifying the defects. The responsibility for after sales warranty   lies with OP1, OP2 &OP4. The opposite party, being only a dealer, has no liability in the matter. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.  The prayer is to accept the version

                       3. The points for consideration are

1.Is there any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?

2.If so, compensation and costs

                   4. Evidence consists of proof evidence filed by the complainant and exhibits P1 to P5 marked. Ext. P1 is the purchase invoice dated 14-01-15 ;Ext. P2  series consists of service job sheets dated 27-11-15,27-02-16 ,15-03-16,10-05-16 ,28-07-16 & 29-07-16; Ext. P3 is the lawyer notice copy dated  nil ; Ext. P4 series are the postal receipts ;Ext. P5 series are the A/D cards .OP’s 1, 2 & 4 have been set ex-parte .However , as per I.A.212/17 filed by the complainant to direct OP4 to produce the phone before the forum, notice was issued to OP4.Even though OP4 entered appearance on 3-05-17 and prayed time, they were absent on  the next posting  day of 20-06-17  nor any documents produced.  Hence, the I.A. was closed, by taking adverse inference against OP4. Also, no counter proof affidavit has been filed by OP3.The Forum has gone through all aspects relating to the case. The argument of the complainant is that since the handset had certain problems in its functioning, it was entrusted to OP3 for repairs six times, the 1^st repair in the 11^th month of purchase, within the warranty period. Ext. P2 series consists of 6 services job cards  dated 27-11-15,27-02-16, 15-03-16,10-05-16, 28-07-16& 29-07-16 which clearly goes on to prove that the complainant was compelled to entrust the phone frequently  to OP4  due to the problems in functioning. The complainant states that as per the job sheet along with Ext. P2 dated 29-07-16, the complainant had entrusted the phone with OP4.  However, since this was returned to the complainant in a tampered position, the complainant refused to accept the same. In order to take steps to prove problems to the phone, the complainant had filed I.A. no.212/17, as per which the 4^th opposite party was directed to produce the phone before the forum. Even though R4 who had appeared before the forum on 3-05-17 prayed time, they were absent and thereby failed to produce the phone before the forum. This action of R4 proves that the phone had certain defects which could not be rectified. Also fact that the opposite parties except R3 were absent is equal to admitting that they were convinced that the phone is defective and not rectifiable. Considering all the above, the Forum is of opinion that the prayer of the complainant is deserving and need be allowed.

                   5. In the result, the complaint is allowed. The 3rd opposite party being the dealer is directed to repay Rs.6,590/- (Rupees Six thousand five hundred and ninety only) , being the cost of the phone to the complainant , along with 9 % interest from 14-01-15, the date of purchase, in addition to compensation and cost of Rs.3000/-(Rupees Three thousand only)  within a month of the date of receipt of the order. They can recover  the amount from OP1,the manufacturer after complying this order.

            Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum this the  31^st day  of  May      2018.

        Sd/-                                                                                  Sd/-

M.P.Chandrakumar                                                       P.K.Sasi,                         

Member                                                                         President.                                                              

                                      Appendix

Complainant’s Exhibits

 Ext. P1 purchase invoice dated 14-01-15 ;

Ext. P2  series - service job sheets `

Ext. P3 Lawyer notice copy dated  nil ;

Ext. P4 series - postal receipts ;

Ext. P5 series - A/D cards                               

                                                                                          Id/-

                                                                                      Member