Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/15/313

Pawan Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Panasonic India Pvt.Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Charanjit Singh Adv.

07 Dec 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

                                                                                              C.C. No. 313/8.5.2015

                                                                                               Decided on : 7.12.2015

 

Pawan Kumar s/o Sh. Lekh Raj, resident of Plot No. 25, St. No. 4, Gurpreet Nagar, Noorwala Road, Ludhiana.                                                                                              

                                                                                 … Complainant

                                                 Versus

1. Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd., C-52, 1^st Floor, Phase-II, Noida, Industrial Area, Delhi-201301, through its Partner/Prop./Director/Authorized Person.
2. S.S. Communication, Backside Shingar Cinema, Opposite Municipal Corporation Building, Ludhiana through its Manager.
3. Gumber T.V. Centre, Near Shivpuri Road, Ludhiana, through its Prop./Authorized Signatory.

                                                                                  …. Opposite Parties

            Complaint u/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

            Quorum: Sh. G.K. Dhir, President,

                              Sh. S.P. Garg, Member.

 

            Present:  Sh. Charanjit Singh, counsel for complainant.

                              Sh. Yash Paul, counsel for OP1.

                             OP2 and OP3 ex-parte.

•  

(Per G.K. Dhir, President).

1. Complainant claimed to have purchased  mobile phone of make Panasonic P41, IMEI No. 354531060342934 from OP3, the authorized agent of OP1 vide Invoice No. 3944 dated 24.10.2014 for consideration of Rs. 11000/- .  One year guarantee was given by OP3 on behalf of OP1 at the time of purchase of this mobile set.  After two months of the purchase of the said mobile set, the same started giving problem.  The mobile set became dead and is not working.  Complainant approached OP3, who claimed that complainant should approach the service centre of Panasonic company i.e., OP2.  In pursuance of that direction, complainant approached OP2 with the mobile set in question on 9.1.2015.  Assurance was given to complainant to do the needful within a short span by removing the defects. OP2 issued job sheet No. KJASPPB172115K13310 dated 9.1.2015. OP3 clearly mentioned as if touch/panel is faulty.  Complainant was advised to visit OP2 again within one week for getting back the repaired mobile set. However, OP2 failed to return the mobile set to complainant till date. Thereafter, the complainant approached opposite parties several times for prevailing upon them to return the mobile set, but concerned OP procrastinated the matter. Even officials of opposite parties did not give satisfactory reply, despite approach by complainant. It is claimed that opposite parties are liable to hand over a new mobile set at their cost to the complainant as per terms and conditions of the warranty. A registered legal notice dated 12.3.2015 was sent to opposite parties on 13.3.2015 by complainant through his counsel, but despite that reply has not been sent to complainant nor the mobile set replaced. Compensation of Rs. 50,000/- on account of mental pain and suffering along with litigation expenses of Rs. 10,000/- claimed by the complainant.
2. OP2 and OP3 are ex-parte in this case, but OP1 filed reply by claiming that complaint is not maintainable, because there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP1. Admittedly, mobile set in question was purchased by complainant in October, 2014 and thereafter, complaint was received from complainant on 9.1.2015 regarding fault of touch screen.  On 16.1.2015, it came to the notice of OP1 that in fact there was manufacturing defect in the PCV and the authorized service centre sent the said mobile set to OP1.  After one month, OP1 replaced the defective parts from the mobile in question. After said replacement  of the defective parts, mobile set was returned to authorized service centre for delivery of the same to complainant. Authorized service centre called upon complainant to collect the repaired mobile set many times, but complainant is insisting for having a new mobile set instead of repaired one. OP has also extended the warranty of the aforesaid mobile set of the complainant, but despite that complainant is not interested in collecting the mobile set despite various calls. Other averments of the complaint denied.
3. Complainant to prove his case tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex. CA along with documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C6, but OP No. 1 tendered in evidence affidavit Ex. RA of Sr. Ajay Kumar, A.R. of Jaina Marketing & Associates.
4. After closure of evidence by OP1 , oral arguments of counsel for the parties heard, because written arguments have not been submitted.
5. From perusal of the pleadings as well as affidavits Ex. CA and Ex.RA, there remains no doubt that mobile set in question was purchased by complainant from OP3, the authorized service centre of OP1 on 24.10.2014 vide Invoice Ex. C1. Receipt of deposit of the mobile set in question for repair was issued by the authorized service centre on 9.1.2015 and the same produced on record as Ex. C2. Even there is no dispute regarding the fact that after receipt of complaint, the mobile set in question was got deposited from complainant by OP2 for repair on 9.1.2015. 
6. Bone of contention remains as to whether complainant entitled for the refund of full price of the purchased mobile set or he is entitled for repair of the mobile set alone?  
7. Legal notice Ex. C3 was also sent by complainant to opposite parties through postal receipts Ex. C4 to Ex. C6, but reply of the same has not been sent by the opposite parties. Even if such reply not sent by OP1, but despite that OP1 through reply and affidavit Ex. RA claimed that OP ready to return back the repaired mobile set with extended warranty and as such, there is less deficiency of service on the part of OP1. No document produced to show as to when OP1 called upon the complainant to collect the repaired handset and as such, deficiency in service on the part of OP1  is to this extent only. A person who has purchased a mobile set and deposited the same with service centre for repair,  is certainly entitled to the return of the repaired mobile set to his satisfaction.
8. As a sequent to the above discussion, complaint allowed in terms that OPs will repair the mobile set in question of complainant within 15 days and hand over the same to complainant. In case, the mobile set still do not work properly, then complainant will be entitled for replacement with the new mobile set in lieu of the old one. Compensation of Rs. 2000/- allowed in favour of complainant and against the OPs because of mental agony and harassment suffered by him. Litigation expenses of Rs. 2000/- also allowed in favour of complainant and against the OPs. Compliance of the order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost.  File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Announced in open Forum.

 

7.12.2015.

 

                               ( S.P. Garg )                                         ( G.K. Dhir )

                                  Member                                               President