Haryana

Panchkula

CC/19/2016

SUKHWINDER KAUR. - Complainant(s)

Versus

PANASONIC INDIA PVT.LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

COMPLAINANT IN PERSON.

15 Jun 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,  PANCHKULA.                                                            

Consumer Complaint No	:	19 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	28.01.2016
Date of Decision	:	15.06.2016

 

Sukhwinder Kaur w/o Sh.Deepak Gulati, H.No.148, Harmilap Nagar, Baltana, Zirakpur, District S.A.S. Nagar (Mohali), Punjab.

                                                                                          ….Complainant

Versus

 

1.       Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd., 12^th Floor, Ambience Tower, Ambience Island, HH-8, Gurgaon-122002, Haryana.

2.       Alkon Technologies, Authorized Service Center of Panasonic Mobiles, SCO NO.38, First Floor, Sector-11, Panchkula.

3.       Gupta Communications, Booth No.16, Sector-11, Panchkula.                           

                                                                                      ….Opposite Parties

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Before:                 Mr.Dharam Pal, President.

Mrs.Anita Kapoor, Member.

Mr.S.P.Attri, Member.

For the Parties:     Complainant in person. 

Ops No.1 and 2 already ex-parte.

Defence of OP No.3 already struck off.

 

ORDER

(Dharam Pal, President)

1. The complaint has been filed by the complainant with the averments that she purchased one Panasonic mobile handset bearing Model P55 & IMEI No.356536061256163 from the Op No.3 for a sum of Rs.9900/- vide cash Memo No.7820 dated 01.02.2015 (Annexure C-1) with warranty of one year. At the time of purchase, the OP No.3 assured the complainant that Panasonic Company is well known both in quality as well as in service. The Op No.3 further assured that if there would be any problem in the product, the company shall replace the handset with new one. After 4 months, in the month of June, 2015, the handset stopped working. The complainant approached the Op No.3 for rectification of problem but to no avail. After asking by the complainant, the OP No.3 told him about the authorized service center. The complainant approached the authorized service center i.e. Ranveer Mobile Solutions, 462, Opposite Gurudwara Abheypur, Village Abheypur, District Panchkula for repair of her mobile. After inspecting the mobile, authorized service center told the complainant that they could not repair the problem and the handset needed to be sent to the Company for repair and it would take at least one month. The complainant submitted his mobile handset vide job sheet No.KJASPHR18815PI12763 dated 07.08.2015 (Annexure C-2). After one month, the complainant approached the authorized service center who asked the complainant to come after 15 days and after 15 days, the mobile handset was handed over to the complainant. After two months, the mobile handset started giving various problems and the handset became completely dead. The complainant approached the authorized service center for repair of her mobile but at that time, the authorized service center told her that they were no longer associated with Panasonic Company. Thereafter, the complainant approached the Op No.2 who was authorized service center of the Panasonic mobiles at that time. The complainant contacted Mr.Amardeep Malik who was the service head of Panchkula region of Op No.1 who told the complainant to submit her mobile handset with OP No.2 and assured that the company would provide new handset to her. The complainant submitted her mobile handset with OP No.2 vide job sheet No.KJASPHR1841115PI190 dated 06.11.2015 (Annexure C-3) who told her that it would take 45 days for getting the handset repaired. After sometime, the complainant got information from customer care that they were sending the handset without repairing it. The complainant asked the Ops No.1 and 2 to replace the handset as per assurance and warranty but OP No.2 flatly refused to repair or replace the handset and the defective handset still in the possession of Op No.2. The complainant requested many times to Ops No.1 and 2 to rectify the defect of the handset or to replace the defective handset with new one but to no avail. This act of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Hence, this complaint.
2. Notice was issued to the Ops No.1 and 2 through registered post. But none has appeared on behalf of the Ops No.1 and 2. It is deemed to be served and the Ops No.1 and 2 were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 10.03.2016.
3. The Op No.3, through Counsel Sh.Vikram Singh, appeared before this Forum on 10.03.2016 and sought time for filing of the written statement. On 30.03.2016, the Op No.3 again sought time for filing written statement and the case was adjourned for 18.04.2016 for filing written statement. On 18.04.2016, none has appeared on behalf of the Op No.3 and case was adjourned to 05.05.2016 for filing written statement of Op No.3. Again on 05.05.2016, none has appeared on behalf of the Op No.3 nor filed written statement after availing opportunities and the defence of the Op No.3 was ordered to be struck off, vide order dated 05.05.2016.
4. The counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence by way of affidavit Annexure C-A alongwith documents Annexure C-1 to C-3 and closed the evidence.
5. We have heard the complainant appearing in person and have also perused the record carefully and minutely.
6. Admittedly, the complainant purchased one Panasonic mobile handset bearing Model P55 & IMEI No.356536061256163 from the Op No.3 for a sum of Rs.9900/- vide cash Memo No.7820 dated 01.02.2015 (Annexure C-1) with warranty of one year. In the month of June, 2015, the handset stopped working. The complainant approached the authorized service center i.e. Ranveer Mobile Solutions, 462, Opposite Gurudwara Abheypur, Village Abheypur, District Panchkula for repair of her mobile who told that they could not repair the problem and the handset needed to be sent to the Company for repair and it would take at least one month. The complainant submitted his mobile handset vide job sheet No.KJASPHR18815PI12763 dated 07.08.2015 (Annexure C-2) with remarks that “charging problem”. After one month, the complainant approached the authorized service center who asked the complainant to come after 15 days and thereafter, the complainant got her mobile handset. But after two months, the mobile handset started giving various problems and the handset became completely dead. The complainant approached the authorized service center for repair of her mobile but at that time, the authorized service center told her that they were no longer associated with Panasonic Company and the complainant approached the Op No.2 who was authorized service center of the Panasonic mobiles at that time. The complainant contacted Mr.Amardeep Malik who was the service head of Panchkula region of Op No.1 and told the complainant to submit her mobile handset with OP No.2 and assured that the company would provide new handset to her. The complainant submitted her mobile handset with OP No.2 vide job sheet No.KJASPHR1841115PI190 dated 06.11.2015 (Annexure C-3) with remarks “no power on” and she was told that it would take 45 days for getting repaired. After sometime, the complainant got information from customer care that they were sending the handset without repairing. The complainant asked the Ops No.1 and 2 to replace the handset as per assurance and warranty but OP No.2 flatly refused to repair or replace the handset and the defective handset still in the possession of Op No.2. The complainant has also filed his duly sworn affidavit (Annexure C-A).
7. Moreover, the Ops No.1 and 2 did not appear and Op No.3 did not file any written statement to contest the claim of the complainant and preferred to proceed ex-parte, which draws an adverse inference against them. The non-appearance of the Ops No.1 to 3 show that they have nothing to say in their defence or against the allegations made by the complainant. Therefore, the assertions made by the complainant go unrebutted and uncontroverted. As such, the same are accepted as correct and deficiency in service on the part of the Ops is proved.
8. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the present complaint deserves to be allowed and the same is accordingly allowed. The Ops are jointly and severely directed as under:-

(i)      To refund the price of the mobile i.e. Rs.9900/- alongwith 9% interest from the date of purchase i.e. 01.02.2015 till realization.

(ii)     To pay an amount of Rs.2000/- as compensation for mental agony, harassment and cost of litigation.

Let the order be complied with within the period of 30 days from the receipt of certified copy of this order.  A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of costs and file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced

15.06.2016        S.P.ATTRI         ANITA KAPOOR        DHARAM PAL

                          MEMBER          MEMBER                     PRESIDENT

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.      

 

                                 

                                                         DHARAM PAL

                                                          PRESIDENT