Delhi

East Delhi

CC/105/2018

ram bhorese - Complainant(s)

Versus

PANASONIC - Opp.Party(s)

07 Nov 2019

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, EAST, Govt of NCT Delhi

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

                                                                                    Consumer Complaint no.           105/2018

                                                                                    Date of Institution                   11/04/2018

                                                                                    Order Reserved on                  07/11/2019

                                                                                    Date of Order                          11/11/2019 

In matter of

Mr  Ram Bharose Gupta          

R/o 4/1273/1 Bhola Nath Nagar,  

Shahdara, Delhi 110032 ……………..………..…………….Complainant

                                                                  

                                                                     Vs

1-M/ s GTV Telecom

500/1, Bhola Nath Nagar,

Shahdara, Delhi 110032

 

2-M/s Panasonic India Pvt Ltd

D-172 Okhala Industrial Area Phase I,

 New Delhi 110020

   

3-I Pick Solutions India Pvt Ltd

F 25, First Floor, Above KFC Restaurant

Preet Vihar, New Delhi ………………………………………Opponents.

 

Complainant’ Advocate                           Mr Rajesh Sharma    

Opponent’s 1&2 Advocate                      Authorised Person    

 

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 Samsung mobile vide model no. GD25C having IMEI A10000911AB03C from OP1/GTV Telecom on 02/06/2016 for a sum of Rs 2400/-(Ex CW1/1), but within two months developed some problem which was rectified by authorised service centre OP3 and was returned to the complainant.

It was stated that the said handset again developed some working problems so handset was taken to OP3 on 29/04/2017 and deposited OP3, but since more than one year neither handset was repaired nor returned (Ex CW1/2). It was stated that CDMA services had been closed by the Govt, had no use of handset so sent many emails for refund of mobile. No reply was received, so seeing deficient services of OP3, filed this complaint and claimed refund of the cost of mobile Rs 2240/-with compensation Rs 80,000/-for mental harassment.   

OP1 & 2 submitted written statement and denied all the allegations alleged against them. It was stated by OP1/seller that the said handset was sold by them and it was properly checked by the complainant. In his complainant, he had contacted service center/OP3 and OP2 for mobile problem, so OP1 had no liability in providing warranty or service to the product so there was no deficiency in services on the part of OP1.

It was also submitted by OP2/manufacturer that there was no manufacturing defect ever reported, so there was no reason to replace the mobile or refund the cost of the mobile.  Hence, this complaint has no merit and so deserves to be dismissed. 

Despite of receiving notice Dasti, OP3 did not appeare so proceeded Exparte.

Complainant filed rejoinder to both written statement of OP1 &2 and relied on his facts and evidences and stated that as the set was sold by OP1 and OP2 was a manufacturer had liability to refund the cost of mobile. Moreso, as the set was kept by OP3, his prayer to refund the cost was correct. He also submitted evidences on his own affidavit and reaffirmed on oath that after relying on cash memo CW1/1 and service report CW1/2, mobile was neither serviced as it was under standard warranty nor refunded its cost by OP3. During warranty tenure and mobile being with OP3, CDMA network was discontinued, so amount be refunded.   

OP1&2 submitted evidence through Mr Rajan Madan, dealer and Mr Arjun Tanwar, authorised Representative of OP2 stated on oath that OP3 had provided services as per terms and condition set by manufacture /OP2. Complainant had put all baseless allegations on OP1 &2 whereas OP2 relied on warranty conditions and service reports. Hence there were no merits and all allegations were baseless, so liability of OP1 and OP2 be exonerated and  complaint be dismissed.

OP2 submitted written arguments where stressed on the point of issue that the said handset had no manufacturing defect. So taken on record.  

Arguments were heard from both the party representative and after perusal of records on file, order was reserved.   

We have gone through all the facts and evidences on record. It was observed that said mobile was purchased from OP1/seller and complainant could not bring any evidence of selling defective product. It was also seen at OP3 had retained handset and neither returned nor got repaired. It is evident that OP3 was deficient in their service by not repairing the handset or returning the same, so complainant proved deficiency of OP3.

For the deficiency in services of OP3, we award compensation of Rs 2000/-. As far as OP2 is concerned OP2/manufacturer is directed to refund the cost of mobile as sum of Rs 2240/-with 9% interest per annum till realizing for not informing complainant in time because of discontinuation of CDMA network by the Govt. and after receiving second complaint on 29/04/2017.

The first free copy of this order be sent to the parties as per the Section 18 (6) of the Consumer Protection Regulation, 2005 ( in short CPR)  and file be consigned to the Record Room under Section 20(1) of CPR.

 

 

 

(Dr) P N Tiwari  Member                                                                          Mrs Harpreet Kaur Member

 

 

                                                                Sukhdev Singh  President