Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/562/2015

Karanvir Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Panasonic - Opp.Party(s)

In person

02 Mar 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

 

 

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/562/2015
Date of Institution	:	24/08/2015
Date of Decision	:	02/03/2016

 

 

Karanvir Singh son of Sh. Karnail Singh r/o H.No.1873, 2^nd Floor, Housefed Complex, Phase X, Mohali.

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

1.     Panasonic, 12^th Floor, Ambience Island, NH-8, Gurgaon 122002, Haryana through its Manager.

2.     Three Ve Marketing Punjab Ltd., SCO No.1028-1029, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh through its Manager.

3.     Panasonic Care Centre, SCO No.495-496, Sector 35-C, Chandigarh through its Manager.

……Opposite Parties

 

QUORUM:	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	PRESIDING MEMBER
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                                                       

 

ARGUED BY	:	Complainant in person
	:	Sh. Nirmaljeet Singh Sidhu, Counsel for OP-1
	:	OPs 2 & 3 ex-parte

       

PER SURJEET KAUR, PRESIDING MEMBER

1.         Sh. Karanvir Singh, complainant has filed this consumer complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against Panasonic and others, Opposite Parties (hereinafter called the OPs), alleging that on 17.3.2015, he purchased a Panasonic Eluga U mobile phone vide bill (Annexure C-1) for Rs.12,650/-. After a month of its purchase, the said mobile phone started giving various troubles/faults of touch, hanging and automatic switch on/off which were brought to the notice of OP-3 and job card dated 26.5.2015 (Annexure C-2) was prepared.  In the evening the complainant was told that the mobile would be sent to Delhi Care Service Centre and it would take at least 10 days’ time.  However, on 17.6.2015 the complainant received a phone call from OP-3 intimating that the phone has come back without repair as the touch screen had been broken and it would cost Rs.3200/- to Rs.3,300/-. The complainant has averred that he was not liable to pay a single penny as the touch screen was not broken at the time of handing over the phone to OP-3. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
2.         In its written reply, OP-1 has not disputed the facts with regard to the purchase of the handset in question by the complainant.  It has been averred that when the complainant approached the OP (service centre) for getting repaired the mobile set in question, it was physically damaged and the same was not covered under the warranty terms. It has further been averred that the complainant was required under the warranty terms to pay for the damaged part which was repaired and the complainant has admitted the fact that the handset in question was repaired.  Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, OP-1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 
3.         OP-2 did not turn up despite due service, therefore, it was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 9.12.2015.
4.         Initially Sh. Jaswinder Singh, authorized agent appeared on behalf of OP-3 and the case was adjourned to various dates for filing its reply and evidence.  However, since neither the reply and evidence was filed nor anybody appeared on behalf of OP-3, therefore, it was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 8.1.2016. 
5.         In his rejoinder, the complainant has controverted the stand of OP-1 and has reiterated his own.
6.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions. 
7.         We have gone through the record and heard the arguments addressed by the complainant in person and learned counsel for OP-1. 
8.         The case of the complainant is that he purchased one Panasonic Eluga U mobile phone for Rs.12,650/- on 17.3.2015 vide bill (Annexure C-1).  Annexure C-4, placed on record alongwith the rejoinder, is a copy of the job sheet dated 26.5.2015 with the complaint of touch panel faulty under the column ‘voice of customer’. The main grouse of the complainant is that though the handset was within the warranty period, but, still OP-3 intimated him that the touch screen had been broken and the relevant repair will cost Rs.3,200/- to Rs.3,300/-. As per the case of the complainant, as the handset is within the warranty period, therefore, the OPs have indulged in unfair trade practice by asking for the cost of repairs. 
9.         The stand taken by OP-1 is that the handset is physically damaged, therefore, the same is not covered under the warranty terms and the complainant has to pay for the damaged part which has to be repaired.
10.         After going through the documents on record and para 2 of the written statement of OP-1, it is apparent that the date of purchase is not disputed.  But as per Annexure C-3, copy of reply to the legal notice by OP-3, there is contradictory statement that the product in question is having warranty of one year and now as the handset is not within the warranty period, therefore, the same will be repaired on payment basis without mentioning any reasons for the same.  A careful perusal of the job sheet Annexure C-4 reveals that it was having fault of touch panel, but, nowhere the OPs have mentioned that the same is out of warranty and is physically damaged. Hence, the contradictory stand taken by OP-1 points out towards its indulgence in unfair trade practice.  Pertinently, OPs 2 & 3 chose not to appear before this Forum and were proceeded ex-parte. Therefore, the evidence produced by the complainant qua them has gone unrebutted. It is not out of place to mention here that the handset was used by the complainant only for two months.
11.         In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the present complaint deserves to succeed. The same is accordingly partly allowed. The OPs are directed :-

(i)     To repair the mobile handset in question of the complainant to his entire satisfaction without charging anything by treating the same to be under warranty period with fresh warranty of 10 months as the product was used only for two months.

(ii)    To pay Rs.7,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant;

(iii)   To pay Rs.5,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation. 

12.         This order be complied with by the OPs within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which they shall make the payment of the amount mentioned at Sr.No.(ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint till realization, apart from compliance of directions at Sr.No.(i) & (iii) above.
13.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

02/03/2016	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]
hg	Member	Presiding Member