DISTRICT   CONSUMER   DISPUTES   REDRESSAL FORUM,GURGAON-122001.

                                                                                                                     Consumer Complaint No: 228 of 2015.                                                                                                                                                             Date of Institution: 04.05.2015                                                                                                                                                                    Date of Decision: 05.10.2015

Prabhakar Chaudhary s/o Dr. Praveen Kumar, R/o H.No.576, Sector-15, Faridabad, Haryana.

                                                                                       ……Complainant.

                                                Versus

1. Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd through its Regional Manager, First Floor, AB Tower,  IFFCO Chowk, Sector-25, Gurgaon, Haryana-122001.

2. Shankla Telecom, Authorized Service Centre, Panasonic Mobiles India , 3^rd Floor, Pandit Jeet Ram Complex, M.G.Road, Sukhrali, Sector-17, Gurgaon, Haryana, India.

3. Amazon India, Brigade Gateway, 8^th Floor, 26/1, Dr. Raj Kumar Road, Malleshwaran (W), Bangalore-560055.

                                                                        ..Opposite party

Complaint under Sections 12 & 14 of Consumer Protection Act,1986                                                                 

BEFORE:     SH.SUBHASH GOYAL, PRESIDENT.

                     SMT JYOTI SIWACH, MEMBER

 SH.SURENDER SINGH BALYAN, MEMBER.

Present:        Sh. Prabhakar Chaudhary, complainant in person

                    Shri Harshwardhan Yadav, Adv for OP-1 (though exparte)

                    OP-2 and OP-3 exparte.

ORDER       SUBHASH GOYAL, PRESIDENT.       

The case of the complainant, in brief, is that complainant purchased a Panasonic P-81 mobile phone from OP-3 on 21.10.2014 bearing IMEI No.353545062415127 for a sale consideration of Rs.10,799/- vide Invoice No.MH-BOMI-137053881-27758. The above handset was delivered to the complainant on 25.10.2014 through courier by OP-3. After opening the same it was found that on inserting the sim card in the sim tray (1) the same card did not work but the sim tray (2) was working properly but 3 G network was only supported on sim try (1) which complainant was unable to use as the same did not work from day one. It is further alleged that on 1.12.2014 he contacted OP-2 who informed him that the fault in the sim tray is not covered under warranty whereas as per the terms and conditions of warranty card complete mobile handset has warranty of one year. He requested the opposites parties to get the defective phone repaired but of no use. Thus, the act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant prayed that the opposite parties be directed to replace the defective mobile set or to return the cost of the mobile set and to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation as well as cost of litigation Rs.22000/-. The complaint is supported with an affidavit and the documents placed on file.

2.                On the other hand, opposite parties No.1 & 3 were proceeded exparte on 13.07.2015 whereas opposite party no.2 was proceeded exparte on 16.09.2015.

3                 However, Shri Harshwardhan Yadav, Advocate for OP-1, the manufacturer, (who has been proceeded exparte) has appeared and made a statement to the effect

“that opposite party no.1 is ready to replace the defective mobile phone with new mobile phone of the same model and if the same model is not available then to replace with new upgraded model. If the defective mobile set is deposited with the service centre then complainant has to give original job sheet along with all accessories.”

4                 However, the complainant has not accepted the said offer.

5                 We have heard the exparte arguments and after going through the exparte evidence and the statement made on behalf of OP-1(who has been proceeded exparte) it emerges that the mobile phone which was purchased by the complainant was defective and the same was liable to be replaced.

6                 Therefore, in view of the statement made on behalf of OP-1, we direct OP-1 to replace the defective mobile phone with new one or with upgraded mobile. If the mobile set is deposited with the authorized service centre then the complainant will deliver the original job sheet to OP-1 along with all accessories of the mobile phone to OP-1. If the complainant is not accepting the upgraded model, then OP-1  to refund the price of the mobile phone. OP-1 is further directed to pay Rs.3000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony as well as litigation expenses. The OP-1 shall make the compliance of the order of this Forum within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the records after due compliance.      

Announced                                                   (Subhash Goyal)

05.10.2015                                                       President,

                                                                   District Consumer Disputes

                                                                   Redressal Forum, Gurgaon

(Jyoti Siwach)        (Surender Singh Balyan)

Member                 Member