THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR
Consumer Complaint No. 391 of 2015
Date of Institution : 16.6.2015
Date of Decision : 7.10.2015
Kuldeep Kaur age 41 years wife of S. Gurjit Singh resident of 54, G, R.B. Estate, Loharka Road, Amritsar
...Complainant
Vs.
Panasonic India Pvt.Ltd, Ist Floor, ABW Tower, IFFCO Chowk, Sector 25, Gurgaon, Haryana 122001
M/s. Bholi Bros., Hall Bazar, Near Congress Bhawan, Amritsar
Satyadaya Timeless Shop, Shop No. 18-28, Pdt.Deen Dayal Upadhiaya Shopping Complex, (Near Hall Gate) Amritsar
....Opp.parties
Complaint under section 12/13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Present : For the complainant : Sh. Navjeet Turna, Advocate
For the opposite parties : Ex-parte
Quorum : Sh. Bhupinder Singh, President ,Ms. Kulwant Bajwa,Member
Order dictated by :-
Bhupinder Singh, President
-2-
1 Present complaint has been filed by Kuldeep Kaur under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that she purchased one mobile set “Panasonic Mlobile Phone) from opposite party No.2 vide invoice No. 9384 dated 28.6.2014. According to the complainant the said mobile set started giving problem on 15.11.2014 and complainant reported the problem to opposite party No.2, but opposite party No.2 refused to listen the problem of the complainant and refused to resolve the same. Complainant then approached opposite party No.3 and handed over the mobile set to opposite party No.3 on 21.11.2014 who issued service job sheet dated 21.11.2014 with defect written as “Dead Hand set”. The opposite party No.3 returned the mobile set on 1.12.2014 after repair. But again the mobile set started giving problem and stopped functioning. Complainant visited opposite party No.3 on 4.2.2015, who again issued job sheet dated 4.2.2015 and delivered the hand set back after repair after 4-5 days. Again on 13.3.2015 the mobile set started giving problems . Again complainant visited opposite party No.3, who refused to entertain the complainant on the pretext that the mobile set is having manufacturing defect and the same cannot be repaired. However, opposite party No.3 issued job sheet dated 13.3.2015 and accepted the mobile set for repair and returned the same after repair after 37 days i.e. on 20.4.2015. But again on the very next day the mobile set again started giving problems and stopped functioning.
Complainant again handed over the mobile set to opposite party No.3 vide job sheet dated 25.4.2015 and since then the mobile set is lying with opposite party No.3. Complainant visited the opposite party No.3 many times to resolve the problem or to replace the hand set but to no avail. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite parties to replace the mobile set or to refund the cost of the mobile set alongwith interest. Compensation of Rs. 50000/- alongwith litigation expenses were also demanded.
2. Opposite parties did not appear and were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 29.7.2015.
3. In ex-parte evidence complainant tendered her affidavit Ex.CW1/A, affidavit of Sh.Gurjit Singh Ex.CW2/A alongwith documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-15.
4. We have carefully gone through the averments of the complainant , ex-parte arguments advanced by the ld.counsel for the complainant and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by the complainant with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for the complainant.
5. From the record i.e.averments of the complaint and the evidence produced on record by the complainant , it stands fully proved on record that complainant purchased Panasonic Mobile phone on 28.6.2014 from opposite party No.2 vide invoice No. 9384 dated 28.6.2014 Ex.C-1 for a sum of Rs. 14000/- . The said mobile started giving trouble in November 2014 and the complainant approached opposite party No.3, authorized service centre on 21.11.2014 and handed over the mobile set to opposite party No.3 vide job sheet dated 21.11.2014 Ex.C-4 in which the defect was written as “Dead Hand Set”. The opposite party No.3 returned the mobile set to the complainant on 1.12.2014 after repair . But the mobile set again started giving same problem and stopped functioning . Again the complainant approached opposite party No. 3 on 4.2.2015 vide job sheet Ex.C-3. Again opposite party No.3 returned the mobile set to the complainant after repair after about 4-5 days. But again on 13.3.2015 the mobile set again started giving problem and stopped functioning. The complainant again approached opposite party No.3 and handed over the mobile set to opposite party No.3 vide job sheet dated 13.3.2015 Ex.C-5. This time the opposite party No.3 returned the mobile set to the complainant after 37 days i.e. on 20.4.2015. But the mobile set was not working properly and again the complainant handed over the mobile set to opposite party No.3 on 25.4.2015 vide job sheet Ex.C-2. Thereafter opposite party No.3 did not return the mobile set to the complainan after repair despite so many visits made by the complainant and the mobile set is still lying with opposite party No.3. Thereafter complainant received message from opposite party No.1 on 4.5.2015 that the mobile set of the complainant shall be repaired and delivered to the complainant shortly but the mobile set was not returned by the opposite party No.1 or opposite party No.3 to the complainant. The complainant sent e-mail Ex.C-9 dated 2.6.2015 . Opposite party submitted reply Ex.C-8 acknowledging the receipt of the e-mail. But no solution was given. The complainant again sent e-mail Ex.C-7 dated 12.6.2015 to opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.1 submitted reply Ex.C-6 dated 12.6.2015 telling the complainant that he should approach their service centre. The complainant again approached the opposite party No.3 but opposite party No.3 neither repaired the mobile set nor returned the same to the complainant and the mobile set is still lying with opposite parties No.1 & 3.
6. The evidence produced on record by the complainant in the form of his own affidavit Ex.CW1/A and affidavit of Gurjit Singh husband and attorney of the complainant Ex.CW2/A , retail invoice Ex.C-1, job sheets Ex.C-2,C-3, C-4 and C-5
and e-mails Ex.C-6 to C-11 . The complainant also served legal notice on the opposite parties Ex.C-12 dated 18.5.2015 through registered post, postal receipts of which are Ex.C- 13 to C-15. But the opposite party neither submitted any reply to that legal notice nor returned the mobile set to the complainant.
7. So from the entire above unrebutted and unchallenged evidence produced on record by the complainant, it stands fully proved on record that the mobile set of the complainant is not repairable. As such opposite parties No.1 & 3 are liable to replace the mobile set of the complainant with new one of same make and model or to refund the amount of the mobile set.
8. Resultantly the complaint is allowed ex-parte with costs and the opposite parties No.1 & 3 are directed to replace the mobile set of the complainant with new one of same make and model or to refund the amount of the mobile set i.e. Rs. 14000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% p.a from the date of filing of the complaint till payment is made to the complainant . Opposite parties No.1 & 3 are also directed to pay litigation expenses Rs. 1000/- to the complainant. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. 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.
7.10.2015 ( Bhupinder Singh )
President
/R/ ( Kulwant Kaur Bajwa) Member
