Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/17/35

Vilshal Pathak Adv. - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Retesh Mohindru Adv.

12 Jul 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

                                                            Complaint No: 35 dated 17.01.2017.                                                               Date of decision: 12.07.2017.             

Vishal Pathak Advocate S/o. Sh. Harinder Pal Pathak, R/o. H. No.B-31/6810, New Preet Nagar, Tibba Road, Ludhiana.                                                                                                                                        ..… Complainant

                                                  Versus

1. Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd. having its registered office at First Floor, ABW Tower, IFFCO Chowk, Sector 25, Gurgaon-122001, Haryana, India through its Managing Director

2. Panasonic Customer Care Service having its Office at D-172, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-1, New Delhi-110020 through its Managing Director

3. H.C. Services, 1^st Floor, Adjoining Bikaner Sweets, Opp. Lyallpur Sweets, Model Town, Ludhiana

4.  Matharoo Mobile Care, Main Market, Kot Mangal Singh Chowk, Near Jeet Sweets, Ludhiana through its Proprietor/Partner

…..Opposite parties 

                              Complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.

QUORUM:

SH. G.K. DHIR, PRESIDENT

SH. PARAM JIT SINGH BEWLI, MEMBER

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant               :         Sh. Ritesh Mohindra, Advocate.

For OP1 and OP2            :         Sh. Govind Puri, Advocate.

For OP3 and OP4            :         Exparte.                                                          

ORDER

PER G.K. Dhir, PRESIDENT

1.                 Complaint under Section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein-after in short to be referred as ‘Act’) filed by complainant by pleading that OP1 is the manufacturer/importer of mobile phones in India, but OP2 is the authorized representative of OP1. OP3 is the authorized service centre of OP1 and OP2. Complainant purchased one Panasonic Phone Model PANASONIC ELEGA L-4G with IMEI No.359495060472387 from OP4 on 14.11.2015 for a sum of Rs.12,000/- on assurance that the mobile will be as per standards of international quality and will carry guarantee of one year. Few months after purchase, complainant noticed that hand set was hanged and touch function of the phone was not working. OP3 was contacted, who took the mobile from complainant and issued service job sheet dated 20.09.2016. That mobile phone has not been repaired till date and nor returned the same despite sending emails. Act of not returning the mobile after repair caused mental agony and harassment to complainant and as such, by pleading deficiency in service on the part of OPs, prayer made for directing Ops to pay the compensation of Rs.40,000/- for mental tension and agony. Refund of price amount of Rs.12,000/- and litigation expenses Rs.11,000/- more claimed.

2.                 In joint reply filed by OP1 and OP2, it is claimed that complaint has been filed with mischievous intentions for enrichment of complainant and that complainant has suppressed material facts. The hand set has been mishandled leading to alleged problem in the handset. Despite that reported problem has been duly rectified by OP1, but complainant intentionally not getting back the mobile set. Admittedly, mobile set was deposited with OP3 for the first time on 20.09.2016, but same had not been taken back with ulterior motive. This complaint alleged to be filed on false facts for getting benefit by complainant of his own wrong. No cause of action alleged to have accrued in favour of complainant because there is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops and nor they committed breach of any part of the contract.  After sales, services has not been denied to complainant. Rather Ops still ready to provide those services to complainant. There is no inherent defect in the mobile. As per terms and conditions of the warranty, liability of OPs is limited because replacement as per terms and conditions of the warranty is not permissible. No specific irreparable manufacturing defect in the mobile alleged and nor it is claimed that inferior quality of the specific part of the product is there. Authenticated expert report or report of the qualified person of Central Approved Laboratories in support of allegations has not been produced. So complainant alleged to have failed to discharge the burden of proof placed on him to establish that there are defects in the mobile. Permission from this Forum not obtained while filing this complaint, despite the fact that answering Ops resides outside territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. Answering Ops are alleged to be having no branch office in territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. Purchase of the mobile set in question by complainant denied for want of knowledge. Problem for the first time was reported after 10 months of the purchase and use of the hand set. Each and every other allegations of complaint denied. OP3 and OP4 are exparte in this case.

3.                 Complainant to prove his case tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex. CW1/A along with documents Ex. P1 to Ex. P3 and then his counsel closed evidence.

4.                 On the other hand, counsel for OP1 and OP2 tendered in evidence affidavit Ex. RA of Sh. Lakhwinder Singh, authorized representative Panasonic India Private Limited and then closed evidence.

5.                 Written arguments not submitted by any of the parties. Oral arguments addressed and those were heard. Records gone through carefully.

6.                 Purchase of the mobile in question by complainant from OP4 on 14.11.2015 for consideration of Rs.12,000/- proved by the production of invoice Ex. P1. On this invoice Ex. P1 itself, it is mentioned that the guaranty and warranty to be provided by the service centre. In view of this specific endorsement on Ex. P1, there is no escape from the conclusion that the seller, OP4 not to provide guaranty/warranty regarding the mobile set sold to the complainant. Being so, in view of this specific terms of the contract endorsed on Ex. P1, it has to be held that OP4 not liable for rectifying the defects in the mobile, particularly when those defects surfaced for the first time on 20.09.2016 i.e. after lapse of more than 9 months of purchase of mobile set.

7.                 Complainant claims that due to problem of hangover of the mobile, he took the mobile to service centre i.e. OP3 on 20.09.2016 and the job sheet in that respect has been produced on record as Ex. P2. So it is obvious that virtually the mobile set in question continued to be used by the complainant w.e.f. 14.11.2015 to 19.09.2016 without any defect. Long use of the mobile without defect for about 9 months itself is a circumstance enough to show as if there is no manufacturing defect in the mobile set in question. Had there been any manufacturing defect in the mobile set in question, then the mobile would not have worked for 10 months approximately until taking of the same for the first time to OP3 on 20.09.2016 for getting job sheet Ex. P2 prepared. No expert report produced to show manufacturing defect in the mobile set in question and as such, submission advanced by counsel for OP1 and OP2 has force that mobile set in question is not suffering from manufacturing defect at all. Rather it is vehemently contended by counsel for OP1 and OP2 that the mobile set after being duly repaired is lying with OP3 and complainant can collect the same at any time from him. Even if that be the position as reported today by counsel for OP1 and OP2, despite that intimation to complainant was not sent regarding the mobile being lying repaired with OP3, despite sending of email Ex. P3 by him. This shows that though complainant called upon Ops to return mobile set after due repair, but Ops did not respond to email Ex. P3. This conduct of Ops shows as if they remained negligent in not providing information to complainant regarding mobile set in question lying duly repaired with OP3. For such negligence or deficiency on part of OP1 to OP3, complainant entitled to reasonable amount of compensation for mental harassment and agony and also to litigation expenses. That compensation should be determined by keeping in view the cost price of the mobile set in question as Rs.12,000/- as evidenced by Ex. P1 and also by keeping in view the fact that mobile developed defect almost after 9 months. Manufacturer cannot escape from liability due to act of omission and commission on the part of service centre in not informing complainant about the mobile set duly lying repaired with OP3. So liability of OP1 to OP3 is joint and several for payment of compensation and litigation expenses.

8.                 As a sequel of above discussion, complaint against OP4 dismissed, but the same allowed against  OP1 to OP3  in terms that OP3 will return the duly repaired mobile set in question to complainant within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of order and even complainant can collect the same from OP3 during working hours on any working day. Compensation for mental harassment and agony of Rs.1,500/- (Rupees One Thousand and Five Hundred only) and litigation expenses of Rs.1,500/- (Rupees One Thousand and Five Hundred only) more allowed in favour of complainant and against OP1 to OP3, whose liability held as joint and several. Payment of these amounts be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.  

                                         (Param Jit Singh Bewli)                      (G.K. Dhir)

                                         Member                                              President

Announced in Open Forum.

Dated:12.07.2017.

Gobind Ram.