Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/153/2015

Pawan KUmar Nanda - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sh. Devinder Kumar Advocate

19 Nov 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	153/2015
Date of Institution	:	20.03.2015
Date of Decision	:	19/11/2015

 

                                                

                                                         

 

Pawan Kumar Nanda s/o Sh.K.K.Nanda r/o # 3365, Sector 15-D, Chandigarh

                                       ...  Complainant.

Versus

1.      Panansonic India Pvt. Ltd., First Floor, ABW Tower, IFFCO Chowk, Sector 25, Gurgaon-122001, Haryana through its M.D.

 

2.      New Tech Electronics, Panansonic Service Centre, SCO 495-496, First Floor, Sector 35-C, Chandigarh through its Manager.

 

3.      Anmol Watches, SCO No.1012-13, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh through  its Proprietor.

…. Opposite Parties.

 

BEFORE:   SHRI RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

SHRI JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER

 

Argued by: Sh.Devinder Kumar, Counsel for the complainant

                   Sh.Rajinder Pandey, Counsel for OP No.2.

                   OPs No.1 and 3 exparte.

 

PER RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

1.           In brief, the case of the complainant is that he purchased mobile handset make Panansonic P-51 from OP No.3 vide bill dated 01.11.2013 for Rs.16,983/- (Annexure C-1), having one year warranty. The mobile handset, in question, became dead and therefore, he approached OP No.3 who advised him to approach the service center i.e. OP No.2. According to the complainant, he deposited the mobile handset with OP No.2 vide job sheet (Annexure C-2) who informed him that the same could only be rectified by OP No.1.  He approached OP No.2 a number of times but every time the matter was delayed on one pretext or the other and finally the mobile handset was returned to him after three months and that too without repairs.  He even requested OP No.2 to replace the same within the warranty period but they refused to do so.  The complainant again approached OP No.2 but to no effect. Ultimately, he got served a legal notice dated 14.10.2014 upon the OPs but it failed to yield any result. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
2.           Despite due service through registered post, Opposite Parties No.1 and 3 failed to put in appearance and as a result thereof they were ordered to be proceeded against exparte vide orders dated 27.04.2015  and 07.07.2015 respectively.
3.           OP No.2 in its written statement took the preliminary objection that the complaint is bad for non-joinder of the parties as M/s Jaina Marketing and Associates, New Delhi has not been impleaded as a party to the complaint because OP No.2 happens to be an agent/service center/franchisee of M/s Jaina Marketing and Associates, New Delhi.   It has been pleaded that  OP No.2 is collection center of M/s Jaina Marketing and Associates who after receiving the mobile phone from the complainant transmitted onwards to M/s Jaina Marketing and Associates, New Delhi for necessary inspection and repairs since he was adamant to get the same replaced.  It has further been pleaded that OP No.1 and M/s Jaina Marketing and Associates, New Delhi are duty bound to effect after sales services for under warranty products. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on its part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
4.           We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and have gone through the documents on record.
5.           The Counsel for OP No.2 took a preliminary objection that the complaint is bad for mis-joinder of M/s Jaina Marketing and Associates as a necessary party because it is only the collecting center of M/s Jaina Marketing and Associates and it has no role to play.  However, we are not impressed with this objection because it is inter se dispute between OP No.2 and M/s Jaina Marketing and Associates and manufacturer and the complainant has nothing to do. Moreover, OP No.2 has failed to move the application to implead M/s Jaina Marketing and Associates as a necessary party to the complaint.  It seems that OP No.2 has just tried to escape its responsibility by taking such a plea.
6.           It is an admitted fact that the complainant has handed over the mobile handset to OP No.2 for its repairs on 14.01.2014 but the same has not been repaired despite the fact that the same is under warranty.  Non-repairing of the mobile handset  under the warranty period by OPs No.1 and 2 itself amounts to deficiency in service as also indulgence into unfair trade practice on their part.
7.                  The complainant has been deprived of the use of the mobile handset for a long period being no fault on his part. Evidently, the complainant had spent the amount for the purchase of a brand new mobile handset to facilitate himself, but not for moving the Service Centre and then to this Forum for justice in the absence of proper service provided by Opposite Parties No.1 & 2. Therefore, the act of Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 in not repairing the mobile phone within the warranty period certainly caused mental agony and physical harassment to the complainant.
8.           In view of the above discussion, the present complaint deserves to be allowed qua OPs No.1 and 2 and the same is accordingly allowed. OPs No.1 and 2 are directed as under ;-

[i]           To replace the defective handset of the Complainant with a brand new one of the same make, model and configuration, with fresh warranty.

[ii]         To pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation for mental agony & harassment suffered by the complainant;

[iii]        To pay Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation.

9.           This order be complied with by Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which they shall be liable to refund the cost price of the mobile handset i.e. Rs.16,983/-, as well as compensation amount of Rs.5,000/- along with interest @12% p.a. from the date of filing of the present complaint, till realization, besides payment of litigation costs. 
10.           However, the complaint qua OP No.3 stands dismissed.
11.           Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

19/11/2015

Sd/-

(RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER