Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/604/2015

Amandeep Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

In person

21 Jun 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/604/2015
Date  of  Institution	:	09/09/2015
Date   of   Decision	:	21/06/2016

 

 

 

 

 

Amandeep Singh S/o S.Inderjit Singh, resident of Flat No.507, Block-B, Ravindra Apartment, Baltana, Zirakpur, District S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali (Punjab).

 

 …………… Complainant.

Vs

 

Panasonic India Pvt. Limited, Head Office: 12^th Floor, Ambience Island, NH-8, Gurgaon – 122002 (Haryana), through its Manager.

 

……………  Opposite Party

 

BEFORE:    DR. MANJIT SINGH                PRESIDENT

           SH.SURESH KUMAR SARDANA         MEMBER

 

For Complainant	:	Complainant in person.
For Opposite Party	:	Sh. Nirmaljeet Singh Sidhu, Advocate.

 

PER SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, MEMBER

 

 

          The succinct facts of the present Complaint are that the Complainant purchased a Panasonic P41 Black mobile handset for a sum of Rs.7,835/- from Snap Deal (an Online Site), through its authorized Dealer namely, Jaina Marketing and Association, vide invoice dated 08.02.2015 (Annexure C-1). It has been alleged that after few months its purchase, when the Complainant faced hanging and display problems in the said handset, he deposited the same for repairs with the Service Centre (Davindra Communication, Manimajra, Chandigarh), on 16.07.2015, vide job sheet Annexure   C-2, who after repairing the handset delivered it back to the Complainant. However, after some time, to the utter dismay of the Complainant, when the aforesaid mobile handset again started creating problems like blurred screen, camera not working, voice not audible while taking call, he approached the Service Centre, for getting it repaired. When nothing positive was done by the Service Centre, the Complainant sent e-mails (Annexure C-3 to C-6) to the Opposite Party regarding the problems faced by him in his newly purchased mobile handset, but there was no satisfactory reply. Eventually, the Complainant demanded a new mobile handset in lieu of the aforesaid mobile, but his request was not considered by the Opposite Party. With the cup of woes brimming, the Complainant has filed the instant consumer complaint, alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party.

 

2.      Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Party seeking its version of the case.

 

3.      Opposite Party, in its reply, has pleaded that whenever the Complainant approached the Service Centre for getting the mobile handset in question repaired, the same was repaired on time and there was no delay on its part. Moreover, the demand of the Complainant for a new handset from the Opposite Party was not genuine and the present complaint has been filed on false and fabricated grounds. All other allegations made in the Complaint have been denied and pleading that there was no deficiency in service on its part, Opposite Party has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

4.      The complainant has filed a replication, wherein he has reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint, and repudiated those, contained in the written version of Opposite Party.

 

5.      Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record, in support of their contentions.

 

6.      We have heard the Complainant in person and learned counsel for the Opposite Party and have perused the record.

 

7.      The main grievance of the Complainant is that the mobile set purchased by him on 08.02.2015 gave certain problems after five months of its purchase, which were repaired by the Service Centre of the Opposite Party. After collection of the mobile set in question, it again started giving similar problems. The mobile set was again deposited with the Service Centre of the Opposite Party and the Complainant pressed for a new mobile handset. However, the stand taken by the Opposite Party is that whenever the Complainant approached the Service Centre for getting the mobile handset in question repaired, the same was repaired on time and there was no delay on its part. After going through the e-mail of the Complainant addressed to the Opposite Party available at Annexure C-3 (Pg. No.19), we observe that it is the Complainant himself who is not prepared to accept the repaired mobile set from the Service Centre of the Opposite Party and insisted for a new handset. It is noteworthy that the learned counsel for the Opposite Party, during the course of arguments, had offered to handover the repaired handset to the Complainant, as the handset was within the warranty period, but the Complainant refused to accept the same and demanded a new mobile set. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that since the Complainant himself is at fault in not collecting the repaired mobile handset from Opposite Party, no case of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice is made out against the Opposite Party.

 

8.      For the reasons recorded above, we do not find any merit in the complaint and the same is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

 

9.      Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

21^st June, 2016                                            Sd/-

[DR.MANJIT SINGH]

PRESIDENT

                                               

      Sd/-                                

[SURESH KUMAR SARDANA]                                                                                                   

“Dutt”                                                                           MEMBER