BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no.41 of 2016
Date of Institution : 5.2.2016
Date of Decision : 9.3.2017.
Ajay Sharma son of Shri Shishpal Sharma, resident of Jandwala Mohalla, Near Goga Mandir, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. Panasonic India Mobile company through its MD/ Manager, 12th Floor, DLF Phase-e, Sector-24, Gurgaon.
2. M/s Unique Sales Corporation through its Prop./ Partner, Opp. Post Office, Sirsa.
3. M/s Panasonic Service Center through its Part./ Prop. Authorized care center of Panasonic Mobile Company, Bishnoi Market, Hisar Road, Sirsa.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI S.B.LOHIA …………………PRESIDENT
SH.RANBIR SINGH PANGHAL ………………MEMBER.
Present: Sh. M.K. Singla , Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. Rishi Sharma, Advocate for opposite parties No.1 & 3.
Sh. V.S. Sihag, Advocate for opposite party no.2.
ORDER
The case of the complainant is that complainant purchased a Panasonic mobile set model Panasonic p-41 HD from opposite party no.2 vide bill No.17944 dated 7.1.2015. On the very next week of its purchase, the mobile could not work properly as its battery was not charging. On visit to op no.2, he sent the complainant to op no.3 i.e. authorized care center of the company and after two days the op no.3 handed over the mobile to complainant after repair. But on the very next day the mobile created same problem upon which the complainant again visited to op no.3 and requested to change the mobile being in warranty period but op no.3 made a strong assurance that this time he will not face problem and they repaired the same. It is further alleged that after about three months, complainant again faced the same problem and op no.3 again took the mobile for repairing on 12.5.2015 and told to complainant to come again after one month and issued job sheet to the complainant. After one month when complainant again visited the op no.3 on 18.6.2015, employee of op no.3 straight forward denied that mobile cannot be repaired and replaced with new one and same was not delivered back to the complainant. On that day, the complainant also made a lot of calls to proprietor/ partner but all in vain. However, again in the month of August, complainant approached op no.3 but they demanded some more time to solve the problem as the complaint was pending before the company. It is further alleged that complainant again and again approached and requested to op no.3 for repair of his mobile but they delayed the matter by saying that company will send the approval and replace the mobile on next week but in the month of December, ops No.2 & 3 refused to repair/ replace the mobile. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite party no.2 appeared and filed written statement to the effect that after purchase of mobile, the complainant never approached to the answering op. The op no.2 is only retail shopkeeper of op no.1 and he has got no other liability except of selling the products manufactured by company.
3. Ops no.1 & 3 also appeared and availed various opportunities for filing written statement including last opportunity but did not file the same and therefore, their right in this regard was closed.
4. By way of evidence, complainant produced copy of bill Ex.C1 and copy of job sheet dated 12.5.2015 Ex.C2. On the other hand, op no.2 produced his affidavit Ex.R2.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully.
6. It is established on record that complainant purchased the mobile in question from opposite party no.2 for a sum of Rs.9,000/- on 7.1.2015 as is evident from copy of bill Ex.C1. There is no rebuttal to the pleadings raised by the complainant against opposite parties no.2 & 3 as ops have not denied the same by filing any written version despite availing various opportunities. So, the version of the complainant has to be believed. In our considered opinion, the complainant is entitled to a defect free mobile from the ops.
7. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite parties either to provide a defect free mobile after necessary repairs after replacement of defective parts, if any free of costs or to replace the mobile in question with a new one of same description and same price within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. All the opposite parties shall be jointly and severally liable to comply this order. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:9.3.2017. District Consumer Disputes
Member Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
