BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.
Complaint No.13/17.
Date of instt.: 06.01.2017.
Date of Decision: 02.11.2017.
Lovneet Bindlish, Advocate, s/o Shri Ravi Parkash Bindlish, r/o H.No.1362/11, Model Town, Ambala Road, Kaithal.
……….Complainant.
Versus
- Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd., Head Office: 1st Floor, ABW Tower, IFFCO Chowk, Sector-25, Gurgaon.
- Kaithal Health Care Centre through its partner/ Prop., Showroom No.1, Koel Complex, Kaithal.
..……..Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Before: Sh. Rajbir Singh, Presiding Member.
Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.
Present : Shri Dheeraj Sharma, Advocate for the complainant.
Shri Mukesh Bansal, Advocate for Op No.1.
Op No.2 ex parte.
ORDER
(RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER).
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he had purchased a mobile set make Panasonic P-51 from the Op No.2 for a sum of Rs.18,000/- vide invoice No.2274 dt. 28.02.2014 with one year warranty. It is alleged that in August 2014, said mobile set developed some defects and he filed a complaint before Consumer Forum, Kaithal, which was allowed and he received a new handset P-51 on 09.08.2016. It is further alleged that the new mobile set is also having manufacturing defects i.e. camera, battery, charger is not working proper manner and hanging problem and due to that problems, mobile set became dead for many hours. It is further alleged that he approached Ops service centre at Kaithal many times and Ops mechanic told that the mobile set cannot be repaired and refused to give any job-sheet. It is further alleged that he continuously approached Ops to resolve the defects of mobile set, but Ops did not pay any heed. This way, the Ops are deficient in service. Hence, this complaint is filed.
2. Upon notice, Op No.2 did not appear and opted to proceed against ex parte vide order dt. 02.03.2017. Op No.1 appeared before this forum and filed the reply raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; time barred; mis-joinder & non-joinder; jurisdiction; that the present complaint is hit by doctrine of res-judicata; that the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum and true facts are that the complainant filed a complaint, which was allowed and Ops complied the order dated 09.08.2016; that the complainant has filed the present complaint with ill motive for making undue pressure upon Ops; that the Ops had already complied the order dt. 09.08.2016 and provided sealed mobile to the complainant, but the complainant again filed the present complaint without any right. On merits, all the contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3. In support of his case, the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A; documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C12 and closed evidence on 05.7.2017. On the other hand, Op No.1 failed to produce any evidence despite availing various opportunities and thus, evidence of Op No.1 closed by Court order vide order dt. 20.09.2017.
4. We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely and have also gone through the evidence led by the complainant.
5. From the pleadings and evidence of the case, it is clear that the complainant has purchased a mobile set make Panasonic P-51 from the Op No.2 vide bill No.2274 dt. 28.2.2014 (Ex.C1). It is also clear that said mobile became defective and the complainant filed a complaint before Consumer Forum, Kaithal (Ex.C2), which was allowed vide order dt. 26.10.2015 and in compliance of that order, the complainant received a new handset P-51 from Ops. As per the complainant, the dispute between the parties is now that the new handset given by the Ops after replacement was also became defective within warranty period and was having manufacturing defects i.e. camera, battery & charger is not working properly; hanging problem; due to that problems, mobile set became dead for many hours. The complainant sent various emails on 23.11.2016 & 24.11.2016 to the Op No.1 (Ex.C6, Ex.C8n to Ex.C11) requesting him to refund the amount of mobile set in question, but Op No.1 neither resolve the defects of the mobile set in question nor paid any amount. The complainant also sent a legal notice to Op No.1 through email on 23.11.2016 (Ex.C7), but all in vain.
6. The complainant has to prove his case himself by producing cogent evidence. To support his contention, the complainant produced on file his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C12. Whereas, on the other hand, Op No.2 did not appear and was proceeded against ex parte vide order dt. 02.03.2017. Further, the Op No.1 also failed to lead any evidence and his evidence was closed by Court order vide order dt. 20.9.2017. So, the evidence adduced by the complainant goes unrebutted and unchallenged. The version of the complainant regarding defects in the mobile set has been supported by affidavit, whereas, on the other hand, as already stated above, the Ops have not produced any evidence to prove their contentions. So, we found force in the contention of ld. counsel for the complainant. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the Ops are deficient while rendering services to the complainant because they again delivered the defective mobile set to the complainant and further Ops neither repaired the said mobile handset nor refund the value of the mobile set to the complainant. In this regard, reliance can be made to authority titled as Sony Ericsson India Ltd. Vs. Ashish Aggarwal, 2008 (1) CPC, Page 52 (NC), wherein it has been held by Hon’ble National Commission that Mobile telephone- Defect – Mobile purchased from Op had problem in key pad – New hand set after replacement also found to be faulty – State Commission directed refund of the money while OP insisted to offer replacement by new handset – Refund of amount is justified as deficiency in service is writ large. The said authority is fully applicable to the facts of instant case. So, in view of above citation, the interest of justice will be met if the cost of mobile set be ordered to be refunded to the complainant.
7. Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the Ops to pay Rs.18,000/- ‘the cost of the mobile set vide Bill No.2274 dt. 28.2.2014, to the complainant. The Ops are also burdened to pay Rs.1,100/- as lump sum compensation on account of harassment, mental agony and costs of litigation charges. All the Ops are jointly and severally liable. Let the order be complied with within 30 days, failing which, the complainant shall be entitled interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of commencement of order till its payment. A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced.
Dt.02.11.2017.
(Harisha Mehta), (Rajbir Singh),
Member. Presiding Member.
Present : Shri Dheeraj Sharma, Advocate for the complainant.
Shri Mukesh Bansal, Advocate for Op No.1.
Op No.2 ex parte.
Remaining arguments heard. To come up on 02.11.2017 for pronouncement of order.
Dated:31.10.2017. Member Presiding Member.
Present : Shri Dheeraj Sharma, Advocate for the complainant.
Shri Mukesh Bansal, Advocate for Op No.1.
Op No.2 ex parte.
Order pronounced, vide our separate order in detail of even date, the present complaint is allowed. File be consigned to record-room after due compliance.
Dated:02.11.2017. Member Presiding Member.
