BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.90 of 2015

Date of Instt. 10.06.2015

Date of Decision :17.09.2015

Raj Pal Singh aged about 47 years son of Mohinder Singh R/o 214/18, Deol Nagar, Jalandhar.

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

1. Panasonic India Pvt Ltd, Ist Floor, ABW Tower, IFFCO Chowk, Sector 25, Gurgaon, Haryana through its authorized representative.

2. M/s Mobile House, Chadha Mobile House Pvt Ltd., Phagwara Gate, Near Bhagat Singh Chowk, Jalandhar through its authorized representative.

3. Harsehaj Communication, Plot No.172, 2nd Floor, Aristocrats Market, Adjoin Oleaga Saloon, New Vijay Nagar, TV Centre Road, Jalandhar through its authorized representative.

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

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Sh.Gurcharan Singh Adv., counsel for complainant.

Sh.Vishal Chaudhary Adv., counsel for OPs No.1 & 3.

Opposite party No.2 exparte.

Order

Parminder Sharma (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 new smart phone make ELUGA A bearing No.354848060030032 from the opposite party No.2 vide invoice No.26382 on 18.8.2014. On the representation of the opposite party No.2, the complainant purchased the said mobile phone for a sum of Rs.9000/-. The said mobile phone started creating troubles of hang and proximity sensor failure from the day one and never performed as purported up by the opposite party No.2 and various advertisements by the opposite party No.1 in this regard. The said phone was not giving performance as professed. The complainant reported the matter to the opposite parties No.1 & 2 who forwarded the complainant to opposite party No.3, the care centre of the opposite party No.1 for having service pertaining to malfunctioning. The complainant reported the problems to the opposite party No.3. The opposite party No.3 updated new software in the mobile phone and handed over the same to the complainant. But despite of the updating of the new software, did not work as professed and started malfunctioning in similar way. The complainant again approached the opposite party No.3 to rectify the defect. The opposite party No.3 asked the complainant to deposit the said phone as there was defect in the motherboard of the phone i.e manufacturing defect. The complainant deposited the said phone for service with the opposite party No.3 and the opposite party No.3 issued the job card receipt No.KJAsppB1701214k12336 and assured the complainant that the opposite party No.3 will resolve the problem within 2/3 days and will return the same to the complainant. The complainant approached the opposite party No.3 number of times but the opposite party No.3 put off the matter with one pretext or other. The complainant then approached the opposite parties No.1 & 2 for solution of the problem but all in vain. Thereafter the complainant sent email to the opposite party No.3 for the redressal of the problem and the opposite party No.1 vide email dated 17.11.2014 informed the complainant that the mobile set is ready and advised the complainant to collect the phone from the opposite party No.3. Thereafter, the complainant visited the opposite party No.3 for getting the mobile phone but the opposite party No.3 informed the complainant that the mobile phone is not yet repaired and asked the complainant to wait for few days. The complainant again sent number of emails to the opposite party No.1 in this respect but all in vain. Complainant was made to run on toes again and again by the opposite parties for having service and curing the defects in the said mobile phone. The opposite party No.3 has informed the complainant that there is a manufacturing defect in the mobile which can not be cured and they will consult with the officials of the opposite party No.1. The opposite party No.3 has not returned the phone to the complainant till date. Even number of visits by the complainant in this regard proved a failure. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite parties to refund the cost of the mobile handset i.e Rs.9000/- alongwith interest. He has also claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

2. Upon notice, opposite parties No.1 & 3 appeared and filed a written reply pleading that as per the information and record available with the opposite parties, the complainant purchased the handset on 18.8.2014 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.3 on 8.12.2014 after the expiry of four months of the warranty period. It is further mentioned that after the preliminary checking the engineer of opposite parties No.1 & 3 told the complainant that he has not used the handset properly and due to which the problem has occurred and then the complainant was ever eager to book his handset and requested the opposite party No.3 to change the handset as there was problem in the handset and for the satisfaction of the customer the opposite parties No.1 & 2 swapped the handset i.e the handset was changed with new one without box and even the opposite party No.3 made various calls to the complainant to visit and collect the handset as the handset is ready for the delivery but the complainant did not turn back to receive the handset. The complainant is adamant to receive new handset with box packing but it is necessary to mentioned that there is no policy of the company to swap the handset with new box packed one as such the complainant threatened the opposite parties that he will file the complaint before the Forum. They denied other material averments of the complainant.

3. Upon notice, opposite party No.2 did not appear and as such it was proceeded against exparte.

4. 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.C22 and closed evidence.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite parties No.1 & 3 has tendered affidavit Ex.OPW1/A and closed evidence.

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

7. The complainant purchased the mobile handset in question from opposite party No.2 for Rs.9000/- vide retail invoice dated 18.8.2014 Ex.C1. According to the complainant, after purchase, the mobile handset started malfunctioning and it was deposited with the service centre vide job sheet Ex.C2. According to the complainant, the above said opposite parties failed to rectify the defect inspite of repeated visits. Further according to the complainant, opposite party No.3 told that there was manufacturing defect in the mobile handset. In its written reply, opposite parties No.1 & 3 have pleaded that they swapped the handset i.e the handset was changed with new one without box and opposite party No.3 made various calls to the complainant to visit and collect the handset as the handset is ready for the delivery but the complainant did not turn back to receive the handset. The fact that opposite party No.3 was ready to give swapped handset to the complainant clearly suggest that there was manufacturing defect in the mobile handset purchased by the complainant and was beyond repair.

8. In the above circumstances, the present complaint is accepted and opposite parties No.1 & 3 are directed either to replace the mobile handset of the complainant with new box packed mobile handset of the same make and model or in the alternative 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

17.09.2015 Member Member President