Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/226/2015

Rajiv Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj Adv.

29 Oct 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	226/2015
Date of Institution	:	05.05.2015
Date of Decision	:	29.10.2015

 

                                                

                                                         

Rajiv Kumar s/o Late Sh.Tejpal r/o # 555/2, Sector 41, 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.      M/s Charanjeet Associates, SCO No.1093, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh through its Proprietor. 

 

…. Opposite Parties.

 

 

BEFORE:   SHRI RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

SHRI JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER

SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

Argued by: Sh.Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate for the complainant

                   Sh.N.S.Sidhu, Advocate for OP No.1

                   OPs No.2 and 3 exparte.

 

PER RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

1.           In brief, the case of the complainant is that he purchased one dual sim mobile make Panasonic P-51 Black  from OP No.3 vide bill dated 28.03.2014 for Rs.16,000/- (Annexure C-1), having one year warranty. The mobile set, in question, became dead and therefore, he approached OP No.3 who advised him to approach the service centre. According to the complainant, he delivered the mobile on two occasions to the service center and the same was delivered after 15 days but he did not retain the job sheets for the said repairs. As the display of the mobile phone became blank and as such he deposited the same with OP No.2 vide job sheet dated 31.07.2014 (Annexure C-2) and since then the mobile is lying with OP No.2. It has been averred that he approached the OP No.2 a number of times but it put off the matter on one pretext or the other. Subsequently, the complainant also contacted Mr.Rana and the Regional Manager of OP No.1 but they failed to give any information regarding status of the mobile phone. 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 Party No.3 failed to put in appearance and as a result thereof it was ordered to be proceeded against exparte vide order dated 24.07.2015.
3.           None put in appearance on behalf of OP No.2, hence it was also ordered to be proceeded against exparte on 21.08.2015.
4.           OP No.1 in its written statement has admitted the factum with regard to the purchase of the mobile set in question. It has been pleaded that whenever the complainant approached the service center with the mobile phone, the same was repaired on time. It has further been pleaded that on the second time, the mobile phone was repaired by the service center and the complainant was informed accordingly but he did not collect the same. The remaining allegations were denied, being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on its part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
5.           The complainant filed rejoinder by way of affidavit to the written reply of OP No.1 controverting its stand and reiterating his own.  He has specifically stated in his rejoinder that the letter (Annexure R-1) is procured one. He has further stated that the letter is dated 16.02.2015 and it is mentioning about the job sheet dated 28.10.2014 whereas the job sheet in question is dated 31.07.2014.  He further stated that the tracking report of the postal department for the said consignment shows “consignment not found’.
6.           We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant &  OP No.1 and have gone through the documents on record.
7.           Annexure C-1 is the copy of the invoice dated 28.03.2014 vide which the complainant purchased the mobile phone in question from OP No.3 for Rs.16,000/. Annexure C-2 is the copy of the job sheet dated 31.07.2014 vide which he had handed over the mobile phone in question to the service center for its repairs.
8.           The stand of  OP No.1 is that the mobile phone in question had been repaired and the complainant was informed regarding the same vide letter dated 16.02.2015 (Annexure R-1) but he did not turn up to collect the mobile phone.
9.           On the other hand, the stand of the complainant is that the said letter has never been received by him.    In support of his version he has placed reliance upon the tracking report of the postal department (Annexure C-4) wherein it was mentioned that the “consignment not found”.   In these circumstances, it is amply clear that the said letter has never been received by the complainant. Moreover, the date and number of the job sheet mentioned in the said letter are also different from the job sheet (Annexure C-2) vide which the complainant has handed over the mobile phone in question to the service center. We feel that in case, the service center has repaired the mobile phone in question then what was hitch for it to inform the complainant immediately after its repairs and as to why it took such a long time to inform him regarding the status of the mobile phone in question.  It seems that OP No.1 has tried to escape from their liability by placing reliance upon the letter (Annexure R-1), which was never sent to the complainant and as such no credence can be placed upon the same.  
10.         There is no doubt about the fact that the complainant has been deprived of the possession of the mobile handset without any fault on his part. The complainant had spent Rs.16,000/- to purchase the handset having faith in the brand to facilitate himself and 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 rectifying the mobile phone for such a long period itself shows that the same is suffering from some major defect and the same cannot be rectified by effecting the repairs.  In view of the above, the deficiency in service on the part of OPs No.1 and 2 is writ large.
11.           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.

12.         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.16,000/-, 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. 
13.           However, the complaint qua OP No.3 stands dismissed.
14.           Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

29/10/2015

Sd/-

(RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER