Delhi

East Delhi

CC/136/2021

TESNEEM AHMED - Complainant(s)

Versus

PANASONIC SERVICES - Opp.Party(s)

05 Jan 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. No. 136/2021

 

	MR. TASNEEM AHMAD S/O MR. SHAMADIN R/O F-1/162, J-EXTN., LAXMI NAGAR, DELHI-110092	….Complainant
Versus
	PANASONIC SERVICE CENTRE, GLOBE CONNEXION AND SERVICES 47-A, VIJAY BLOCK OPP. PILLAR NO.53, BEHIND NATHU SWEET LAXMI NAGAR, DELHI - 110092	……OP

 

 

Date of Institution:  08.03.2021

Judgment Reserved on: 02.01.2023

Judgment Passed on: 05.01.2023

                  

CORUM:

Sh. S.S. Malhotra (President)

Mrs. Rashmi Bansal (Member)

Sh. Ravi Kumar (Member)  

 

Order By: Shri S.S. Malhotra (President)

 

 

 

JUDGEMENT

1. By this order I shall dispose off the complaint of the complainant w.r.t. deficiency of service by both OPs i.e. OP1 who charged Rs.2800/- from the complainant and OP2 who charged Rs.1600/- from the complainant and did not render the requisite services. 
2. Brief facts as stated by the complainant in the complaint are that he purchased one phone Panasonic Eluga A4 on 18.05.2018 for an amount of Rs.7569/-.  However, the glass of display had broken due to dropping of the phone and he approached OP1 who in turn advised him for replacement of the glass for Rs.2800/- which was given to him but when this phone was delivered back to the complainant, the same problem was still existing.  He visited the OP1 again and deposited the phone with OP1 who took one month but did not repair the phone and then he visited another service centre i.e. OP2 who demanded Rs.1600/- from him, which the complainant paid.  However, when the complainant checked the phone at home the problem was still existing and thereafter he visited OP2 again but this time the representative of OP2 told him to deposit some more amount for checking the exact problem and neither OP2 returned the phone nor repaired  it and as such feeling aggrieved on account of deficiency in service of both the OPs he filed the present complaint thereby demanding Rs.2800/- from OP1, Rs.1600/- from OP2 and the cost of the phone along with mental harassment to the extent of Rs.200000/- and legal expenses to the extent of Rs.10000/-.
3. OPs were served and none of the OPs appeared and matter was listed for complainant’s evidence by observing that law will take its own course but since none appeared on behalf of OPs even on the next date of hearing i.e. 26.07.2022, both the OPs were proceeded Ex-parte and complainant was directed to file CE which he has filed. 
4. The Commission has heard the arguments and perused the record.
5. The complainant can be bifurcated into two parts i.e. against OP1 and OP2.   Coming to the fact w.r.t. OPs, it is alleged that OP1 charged Rs.2800/- and replaced the glass but according to the complainant the deficiency still subsisted.  Record has been perused by the Commission.  The OP1 charged Rs.2800/- from the complainant on 28.11.2020 and as per bill he gave one month warranty.  No document is filed alleging any complaint by complainant within one month of 28.11.2020.  Therefore, the claim of the complainant that the problem which was disclosed to OP1 was still subsisting or whether that problem was the same problem when the complainant approached OP2 on 16.02.2021 has not been established.  Therefore, the complainant is not able to prove that there was any deficiency on the part of OP1.
6. As far as services w.r.t. OP2 are concerned OP2 did charge Rs.1600/- on 10.02.2021 for Rs.1600/- and gave two month’s warranty by stating that he has replaced camera glass and also has replaced connector.  The complainant visited again on 16.02.2021 and another job sheet was prepared and phone was retained by OP2.  Complainant claims that he was not properly heard on 16.02.2021 and even his phone was retained and neither his amount of Rs.1600/- was returned nor was the phone returned/rechecked.  The record suggests that the phone was repaired on 10.02.2021, and two month’s warranty was given by OP2, Rs.1600/- was charged and the problem was still subsisting for which job card dated 16.02.2021 has been placed on record.  Therefore, the complainant has been able to prove the deficiency on the part of OP2. 
7. The Commission therefore is passing orders against OP2 only, thereby directing him to return the amount of Rs.1600/- to the complainant with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the complaint and also pay compensation of Rs.3500/- including litigation charges within one month of the date of receipt of order.  If the amount is not paid within one month he would also pay interest on Rs.3500/- also i.e. on entire amount till actual payment @ 9% p.a. 

This order be complied with within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order.

3. opy of the order be supplied / sent to the parties free of cost as per rules.

File be consigned to Record Room.   

Announced on 05.01.2023