BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.214 of 2015

Date of Instt. 19.05.2015

Date of Decision :12.10.2015

Harmeet Singh aged about 43 years son of Dilbagh Singh R/o 131, Paragpur, PO Dhannwali, Tehsil & District Jalandhar.

..........Complainant Versus

1. Panasonic India Pvt Ltd., Head Office First Floor, ABW Tower, IFFCO Chowk, Sector 25, Gurgaon-122001 through its Mg.Director/ Authorized Signatory.

2. Panasonic Service Centre, Harsehaj Communication, Plot No.172, 2nd Floor, New Vijay Nagar, TV Centre Road, Jalandhar through its Prop./Partner.

.........Opposite parties.

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Sh.Ashish Goyal Adv., counsel for complainant.

Sh.Vishal Chaudhary Adv., counsel for OPs.

Order

Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, against the opposite parties on the averments that the complainant purchased a Panasonic mobile model No.P51 having IMEI No.357007050381007 on dated 15.7.2014 from the authorized agent/retailer of the opposite parties for Rs.14,500/-. The complainant found some defects in his mobile handset regarding the problem in motherboard of the mobile phone. Accordingly the complainant had given his mobile set for warranty repairs to the opposite party No.2 firstly in the month of January,2015 vide job sheet No.13031 and again on 18.2.2015 vide job sheet No.KJASPPB 170215K13787. At the time of taking the handset of the complainant, the opposite party No.2 through his customer care executive assured the complainant that his mobile set will be repaired within 7 days from the acceptance of mobile handset. The complainant approached the opposite parties in order to take the delivery of his mobile after under going necessary repairs of the same on the date given to him but the opposite party No.2 failed to deliver the same till date and the mobile is in possession of the opposite party No.2. There has been a deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties for not repairing the mobile set of the complainant properly as the mobile is still not working properly due to the same defect. Therefore the opposite party No.1 is requested to replace the same as early as possible. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite parties to deliver him new mobile handset. He has also claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

2. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared and filed a written reply, inter-alia, pleading that as per the information and record available with the opposite parties, the complainant has purchased the handset on 15.7.2014 and from that date the handset was working properly and there was no defect in the handset but the complainant in order to harass and pressurize the opposite parties firstly visited the office of opposite party No.2 in first week of January 2015, after the expiry of five months of the warranty period. It is necessary to mention that after necessary repairing, the said handset was returned to complainant. But the complainant in order to harass and pressurize the opposite parties again visited the office of opposite party No.2 and that time the customer was very eager to book his handset and then the opposite party No.2 received the handset of the complainant for the necessary repair but the complainant never turned back to receive the said handset from the opposite parties and has filed the present false and frivolous complaint and only on this score the present complaint is liable to be dismissed with heavy cost. They denied other material averments of the complainant.

3. In support of his complaint, learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CA alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5 and closed evidence.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite parties has tendered affidavit Ex.OPW1/A and evidence of the opposite parties was closed by order.

5. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the learned counsels for the parties.

6. The complainant purchased the mobile handset in question for Rs.14500/- vide retail invoice Ex.C1. According to the complainant, the handset was purchased on 15.7.2014 but in January 2015 it developed problem regarding motherboard and he gave the mobile handset to opposite party No.2 vide job sheet and then again on 18.2.2015 vide job sheet Ex.C2. According to the opposite parties, the mobile handset is lying in repaired condition with opposite party No.2 but complainant never came to receive the same. We have carefully considered the version of both the parties. The handset is admittedly lying with opposite party No.2 since 18.2.2015 as is evident from job sheet Ex.C2. In the column of voice of customer-no network is mentioned. Before 18.2.2015 the complainant gave the handset to the opposite party No.2 in January 2015 but the defect was not rectified. The opposite party has not shown if after 18.2.2015 it ever give any notice to the complainant stating that his mobile handset is lying in repaired condition and he may collect the same. One purchases mobile to use and enjoy it and not to repeatedly visits the service centre for repair.

7. So in the above circumstances, the present complaint is accepted and opposite parties are directed to give new mobile handset of the same make and model to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order and in case same model is not available then to refund its price to him. The complainant is also awarded Rs.3000/- in lump sum on account of compensation and litigation expenses. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia

12.10.2015 Member Member President