Consumer Complaint No.36 of 2016
Date of filing: 08.3.2016 Date of disposal: 17.02.2017
Complainant: Mrs. Sunetra Konar, W/o. Ayan Prosad Konar, residing at Rani Sayar East, R.C. Das Road, Burdwan, PO. & Dist: Burdwan, PIN – 713 101.
-V E R S U S-
Opposite Party: 1. Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd., a company registered under Companies Act, having its registered office at 12th Floor, Ambience Tower, Ambience Island, NH-8, Gurgaon – 122 002, Haryana, India, being represented by its Director.
2. Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd., Regional Office, represented by its Manager, having its office at 15th Floor, Acropolis Mall, 1858, Rajdanga Main Road, Opposite Kasba New Market, Kolkata, West Bengal, PIN – 700 107.
3. Raj Mobile, authorized service centre of Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd., situated at 500, G. T. Road, Mehedi Bagan, Burdwan, West Bengal, PIN – 713 101, being represented by its Proprietor Mr. Raj Kumar Singh.
Proforma Opposite Party: Raxico, situated at B.C. Road, Opposite of SBI ATM, PO. & Dist: Burdwan, PIN – 713 101, being represented by its Proprietor Mr. Sirajul Haque, 10006965116.
Present: Hon’ble Member: Smt. Silpi Majumder.
Hon’ble Member: Sri Pankaj Kumar Sinha.
Appeared for the Complainant: Ld. Advocate, Santi Ranjan Hazra.
Appeared for the Opposite Party: None.
J U D G E M E N T
This complaint is filed by the Complainant u/S. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service, as well as, unfair trade practice against the OPs as the OPs neither repair nor replaced the mobile of the Complainant till filing of this complaint.
The brief fact of the case of the Complainant is that she wanted to purchase a mobile handset having both CDMA and GSM SIM compatibility and accordingly on 12.07.2015 along with her husband she went at the shop room of the OP for purchase of one mobile handset. The authorized representative of the OP-1 disclosed that the product of their company is very good and having longevity of the battery. Their SAATHI GD25c mobile phone/handset will be capable to work both CDMA and GSM SIM. The Complainant decided to purchase the said product simply believing the averment so made by the said employee of the OP-1. On the same day the Complainant purchased one Panasonic mobile phone (SAATHI GD25c) bearing IMEI A100009117559CC & IMEI 354968061178588, manufactured by the OP-1 from the shop room of the Proforma OP. The price of the said mobile handset was of Rs.2, 700=00. The Complainant paid the said amount in cash and obtained valid receipt along with warranty card duly signed and sealed by appropriate authority. As per the terms of the warranty the said mobile had 1 year manufacturer warranty for device and 6 months manufacturer warranty for in-box accessories including batteries from the date of purchase. But within three months from the date of purchase the Complainant noticed that the said mobile hand set was not working properly. There was CDMA SIM/signal problem in the said hand set. The Complainant communicated the same with the Proforma OP and explained the problems in details. He advised the Complainant to go to the authorized service centre of the OP-1 i.e. OP-3. On 01.10.2015 the Complainant went before the OP-3 where the authorized service man received the said mobile hand set and after checking the same in the job sheet no-16533 dated 01.10.2015 informed her that there are severe problem in the said set and for removal of the said problem/defect the same would have to send to the office of the OP-1and it would take almost two months time to get the mobile repaired. The OP-3 informed the Complainant that the several customers lodged their complaints in respect of the questioned hand set and the Company will replace the same. No specific date was given by the OP-3 for delivery of the same to the Complainant after its necessary repairing, but requested the Complainant to contact after one month to know the status. Thereafter the Complainant either herself or through her husband made contact with the OP-3 on several occasions, but the OP-3 always informed that they have sent the said hand set to the Head Office and has not received as yet and the Head Office did not return the same. On 06.01.2016 when the husband of the Complainant made further enquiry at the office of the OP-3 the authorized person undertook that they would inform the Complainant as and when they received the mobile from the company. Inspite of long wait for more than one month the Complainant did not get any information from the side of the OP-3. It is very much unfortunate that after its purchase the Complainant used the same only for three months. Therefore the acts and conduct of the OPs suffer from deficiency in service as they did not bother to abide by the terms and conditions of the warranty card. As her grievance have not been redressed by the OPs, hence finding no other alternative the Complainant has approached before this Ld. Forum by filing this complaint praying for direction upon the OPs either to repair the defects of the mobile hand set or to replace the same with a new one, in respect of failure to do the same the Complainant has prayed for refund of the cost of the mobile hand set as paid by her, to pay a sum of Rs.10,000=00 as compensation due to mental agony, harassment and pain and litigation cost of Rs.5,000=00 to her.
After admission of the complaint notices were issued through the office of this Ld. Forum upon the OPs and date was fixed for s/r and appearance of the OPs on 13.04.2016. On the said date there was no service return in respect of the OP nos-1, 3 and 4 and the notice in respect of the OP-2 notice was returned back with the remark as ‘insufficient address’. Therefore further date was fixed for s/r and appearance of the OP-1, 2 and 4 and taking step by the Complainant in respect of the OP-2. On the next date track report showed that inspite of receipt of the notice the OP-1 did not turn up. Praying for amendment in the address of the OP-2 in the cause title the Complainant filed an application and the same was allowed. On 201.2.2016 we have noticed from the track report that the remaining OPs have duly received the notices, but did not turn up and for this reason this complaint was fixed for ex parte hearing.
We have carefully perused the record and documents filed by the Complainant and heard argument advanced by the Ld. Counsel for the Complainant at length. On the date of final argument none was present on behalf of the OPs. It is seen by us that the averments of the Complainant have not been confronted by any of the OPs either orally or by filing written version. So as the complaint is filed on affidavit, hence we have no scope to disbelieve the same, moreover when the OPs did not contest the same oath versus oath. Admittedly the Complainant purchased one mobile hand set from the OP-1 against payment of Rs.2, 700=00 and the OP-1 issued receipt to the Complainant along with a warranty card whereby the said hand set was under the coverage of one year warranty. But within three months from the date of its purchase the said hand set became defective. Be it mentioned that the Complainant purchased the said mobile set on 12.07.2015 and due to defect the same was given to the OP-3 for necessary repairing on 01.10.2015. Thereafter the Complainant made contact with the OP-3 on several occasions requesting it to return her mobile set after its necessary repairing, but the OP-3 on every occasion assured her that the set had been sent to the head office and as and when the OP-3 will receive the same, then and there the OP-3 will intimate her. But unfortunately since 01.10.2015 till filing of this complaint no information has yet been received by the Complainant from the end of the OP-3. Therefore the Complainant is in dark as to whether her mobile has already been repaired or not. The job card issued by the OP-3 shows that the said mobile hand set is suffering from defect/s and the same has been cropped up within the warranty period. The OP-3 had neither return the mobile after its necessary repairing or opined that the defects could not be repaired and kept the hand set under its custody since 01.10.2015. Inspite of several correspondences, no fruitful result yielded. Moreover during its custody the warranty has expired, but the Complainant could not enjoy the same. Such action of the OP-3 certainly suffers from deficiency in service. As the defects cropped up in the mobile hand set, hence the Complainant is entitled either to get it repaired free of cost or a new mobile hand set with similar description from the OPs. The Complainant has succeeded to prove her case, hence the complaint is allowed.
Going by the foregoing discussion hence, it is
O r d e r e d
that the complaint is allowed ex parte with cost. The OPs are directed either jointly or severally to return the repaired mobile hand set to the Complainant or to replace the same with a new and similar description one within 45 days from the date of passing of this judgment, in default, the OPs shall either jointly or severally refund the entire price to the Complainant to the tune of Rs.2, 700=00 within 60 days from the date of passing this judgment. The OPs are further directed either jointly or severally to make payment of Rs.500=00 as compensation due to mental agony and harassment and litigation cost of Rs.200=00 to the Complainant within 45 days from the date of passing of this judgment, in default the Complainant will be at liberty to put the entire order in execution as per provision of law.
Let plain copies of this be supplied to the parties free of cost as per provisions of law.
Dictated and corrected by me.
(Silpi Majumder)
Member
DCDRF, Burdwan
(Pankaj Kumar Sinha) (Silpi Majumder)
Member Member
DCDRF, Burdwan DCDRF, Burdwan
