BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.458 of 2014

Date of Instt. 30.12.2014

Date of Decision :15.05.2015

Hari Om son of Late Sh.Anant Ram R/o Village Sofi Pind (New Abadi), P.O.Kukar Pind, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1. Panasonic India PVt Ltd, (Corporate Office) Plot No.D7, 5th Floor, Nanak Chamber, New Link Road, Andheri West, Opposite Fun Cinema, Near Laxmi Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400058.

2. Mobile House Pvt.Ltd, Near Bhagat Singh Chowk, Phagwara Gate, Jalandhar City.

3. Harshaj Communication, Plot No.172, 2nd Floor, Aristocrate Market, Adjoining Olega Saloon, New Vijay Nagar, TV Centre Road, Jalandhar.

.........Opposite parties

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Complainant in person.

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

Opposite party No.2 exparte.

Order

Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, against the opposite parties on the averments that opposite party No.1 is a manufacturer of Panasonic mobiles. Opposite party No.2 is authorized selling agent of opposite party No.1 for Jalandhar and opposite party No.3 is after sale service provider of products of opposite party No.1. On 24.2.2014, the complainant purchased a Panasonic T-21 mobile from the opposite party No.2, authorized selling agent of opposite party No.1. Complainant after going through the operating manual and guideline of opposite parties, operated the mobile strictly in accordance with the instructions as narrated to him but on operating/using the mobile, it was found that the mobile was not working properly. Mobile was/is not opening/starting properly, automatically switched off in routine, showing blank display and not charging. The complainant at once visited the opposite parties No.2 and 3 and narrated the entire problem 4-5 times during the period 22.7.2014 to 12.12.2014 vide their various job sheets as a proof of defective product. After numerous visits, telephone calls to opposite party No.3 engineer to rectify the fault/defect, the engineer of opposite party No.3 inspected the mobile handset, tried to cure the defect but unfortunately could not ultimately reach to conclusion that defect can not be curred and forwarded to their Delhi service centre as usual for three time. Complainant protested to the opposite parties No.2 and 3 with regards to the defective mobile handset/product vide endless, visits, phone calls and mails but neither till date defective product/mobile handset has been replaced nor defect curred. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for compensation and litigation expenses.

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

3. Upon notice, opposite parties No.1 and 3 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 24.2.2014 and from that date the handset was working property and there was no fault 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 13.5.2014 after the expiry of three months of the warranty period. It is necessary to mention that after the preliminary checking the engineer of answering opposite parties told the complainant that he has not used the handset properly and due to which the problem has occurred and then the complainant was 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 answering opposite parties swapped the handset i.e the handset was changed with new one without box and without accessories 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 delivery but the complainant did not turn back to receive the handset. They denied other material averments of the complainant.

4. In support of his complaint, complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CA alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C20 and closed evidence.

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

6. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the complainant in person and learned counsel for the opposite parties No.1 & 3.

7. The complainant purchased the mobile handset in question from opposite party No.2 vide retail invoice dated 24.2.2014 Ex.C1 for Rs.9400/-. According to the complainant, the mobile handset developed various defects during the warranty period and opposite parties No.1 and 3 failed to rectify the same. He has placed on record service job sheets Ex.C4 to Ex.C6 to show that the mobile handset developed defects repeatedly. In their written reply, opposite parties No.1 and 3 have pleaded that they swapped the handset i.e the handset was changed with new one without box and without accessories but complainant did not turn back to receive the handset. This fact clearly shows that the handset in question purchased by the complainant was defective and was beyond repairs.

8. In view of above discussion, the present complaint is accepted against opposite parties No.1 and 3 and they are directed to give the brand new mobile handset of the same make and model to the complainant in lieu of old one with fresh warranty of one year within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 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

15.05.2015 Member Member President