Delhi

East Delhi

CC/192/2015

MAHIMA TALWAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

PANASONIC INDIA - Opp.Party(s)

25 Jan 2017

ORDER

                          CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, EAST, Govt of NCT Delhi

                  CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, 1^st FLOOR, SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI 110092                                  

                                                                                                  Consumer complaint no.           192/2015

                                                                                                  Date of Institution                  31/03/2015

                                                                                                  Order Reserved on                 25/01/2017

                                                                                                  Date of Order                          27/01/2017  In matter of

Ms Mahima Talwar, adult   

R/o  117, Priya Enclave  

Karkarduma, Delhi 110092…………………….……..………………..….Complainant

                                                                  

                                                                     Vs

1- M/s Sargam Electronics,

C-52, Preet Vihar, Delhi 110092

 

2-The Cell Care   

D-30, 2^nd Floor, 

Old Patpargunj Road, Delhi 110092

 

3-Panasonic Customer Services .  

Through Jaina Mobile Marketing

D- 172, Okhla Industrial Area, New Delhi 110020………..……….Opponents

 

Complainant …………………………………In Person    

Opponent 1 & 2 Advo. ……..…………..Ms Jyoti Sharma

 

Quorum          Sh Sukhdev Singh      President

                         Dr P N Tiwari              Member                                                                                                   

                         Mrs Harpreet Kaur    Member

 

Order by Dr P N Tiwari  Member 

Brief Facts of the case                                    

Complainant purchased a Panasonic Mobile T21 white from Sargam Electronics as OP1 on dated 05/04/2014 vide retail invoice SPREET -076 having its IMEI1 357010050231495  for sum of Rs 9400/ marked as  CW1/1. The warranty card was also issued by OP1 marked as CW1/2.   

Mobile developed some problem and stopped working, so complainant visited authorized service centre OP2 / Cell care on 31/12/2014 and the same was shown to the Panasonic service job sheet no. KJASPDL 108115K21543 and noted problems as “Liquid Failure” and the same handset was returned without repair marked here as CW1/3 &4. The repair charges were told a sum of Rs 5180/-by OP2 which complainant did not pay. As the said problem was not present at the time of depositing with OP2 as her mobile was under warranty. So, she took her mobile to a local mobile repair shop who rectified the problem instantly and she paid a sum of Rs 400/-. Here no such liquid damage problem was noted by a local shop owner. The bill marked here as CW1/5.

By seeing the attitude of services offered by OP2, she sent a legal notice for refund of amount paid by her as marked here as CW1/6. Neither the reply was sent by OPs nor her mobile was repaired or amount was refunded, so aggrieved and felt harassed and filed this complaint claiming refund of cost of her mobile Rs 9400/-with other charges paid Rs 1400/-and compensation Rs 2,000/- for mental and physical harassment with litigation charges Rs 2000/-.

 

After scrutiny of case, it was seen that OP1 had no allegation labeled by complainant, so OP1 name was deleted from the array of parties. Complainant filed fresh memo of parties and then notices were served. A joint written statement was submitted by OP3 on behalf of OP2 also denying all the allegations of complainant. OP3 submitted that the said mobile had liquid damage and thus it was not covered under the standard warranty terms and condition, so it was returned to the complainant. OP3 stated that their products were in one year standard warranty except battery. The said mobile had no manufacturing defect as it was used over eight months by complainant without any problem.

Complainant filed her rejoinder, but no evidence was filed. OPs also did not file their evidences on affidavit. OPs were not preceded Ex Parte. Arguments were heard from both the parties, file perused and order was reserved.  

We have gone through all the facts and evidences on record, it was evident that the complainant had deposited her mobile with OP2 for repair, but no repair was done and was told as mobile had liquid damage. It was also seen that repair charge was asked from complainant, but the same was not paid. As mobile was under warranty and the said mobile was got repaired by complainant herself, thus the said warranty condition was violated by complainant.  

None of the parties submitted their evidences on affidavit. In such condition, we cannot opine that the deficiency of OP2 was deliberate and entered in unfair trade practice by asking complainant to pay for liquid damage which was excluded from warranty. But problem was rectified by herself from a local mobile repair shop; hence damage cannot be established in non filing of evidences on affidavit by complainant.

Hence, this complaint is dismissed without any merit and on order to cost.    

The copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules and file be consigned to the record room.

 

(Dr) P N Tiwari                                                                                                          Mrs  Harpreet Kaur                                                                                                       

Member                                                                                                                                        Member                                                                                   

                                                         

                                                       Shri Sukhdev Singh

                                                                       President