DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

PATIALA.

                                      Complaint No. CC/16/116 of 17.3.2016

                                      Decided on:        12.7.2016

Smt. Suman Sharma , aged about 53 years, wife of Sh.R.C.Sharma, resident of 1872 /1 Kacha Patiala, Patiala.

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1. Patiala Opticals, Arya Smaj Chowk, Patiala, through its Porp.
2. Sonu Mobile Care, Authorized Panasonic Service Centre, Bus Stand, Patiala, through its Prop.
3. Panasonic Mobiles and Tablets, D-172, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-1, New Delhi, through its authorized signatory.

                                                                   …………….Ops

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act.

                                      QUORUM

                                      Sh. A.P.S.Rajput, President

                                      Smt.Neelam Gupta, Member

Present:

For the complainant:   Sh.Balkar Singh,Advocate

For Ops No.2&3:         Ex-parte.   

                                         ORDER

NEELAM GUPTA, MEMBER

1. The complainant purchased one mobile phone make, Panasonic vide invoice No.9628 dated 6.4.2015 for an amount of Rs.6450/- from Op no.1. It is averred that after some time of the said purchase, the mobile phone started giving problem in its key pad and it did not function properly. The complainant approached Op no.2 i.e. the authorized service centre of the company on 17.9.2015 and the Op no.2 after checking the mobile phone, removed the defect in the mobile phone and returned the same to the complainant but after some time, the mobile phone again started giving the same problem in its key pad. The complainant again approached Op no.2 on 29.12.2015. Op no.2 kept the mobile phone with it and after one month it returned the mobile phone to the complainant saying that the defect in the mobile phone had been rectified. It is further averred that after some time, the mobile phone in question again started giving the same problem and the complainant again approached Op no.2 on 24.2.2016 and deposited the mobile phone with it. Op no.2 told the complainant to collect the mobile phone after one month but since then the mobile phone has been lying with Op no.2, who has neither rectified the problem nor returned the mobile phone to the complainant.
2. On 29.2.2016 the complainant got served legal notice to the Ops but to no effect. Due to the  non functioning of the mobile phone, the complainant has been facing great difficulty and she underwent a lot of mental agony as well as harassment. Failure on the part of Op no.2 to rectify the problem in the mobile phone amounted to unfair trade practice as well as deficiency in service on the part of Op no.2 as the defect occurred in the mobile phone during the warranty period. Ultimately the complainant approached this Forum under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 ( for short the Act) .
3. Cognizance of the complaint was taken against Ops no.2&3 only. Op No.2 as well as Op no.3 failed to appear despite service and were thus proceeded against exparte.
4. In support of her case, the complainant produced in evidence Ex.CA, her sworn affidavit alongwith documents Ex.C1 to C9 and closed the evidence.
5. The complainant filed the written arguments. We have gone through the same, heard the counsel for the complainant  and also gone through the evidence on record.
6. Ex.C1 is the copy of the invoice whereby the complainant purchased the mobile phone on 6.4.2014 for an amount of Rs.6450/-.Ex.C5 is the job sheet vide which the complainant deposited the mobile phone with the service centre on 17.9.2015, showing the problem as ‘auto keypad open’. Op rectified the problem but the same problem again occurred in the mobile phone and the complainant again deposited the mobile phone with the service centre on 29.4.2015 vide job sheet i.e. Ex.C3, showing problem in the ‘keypad’ of  the mobile phone. Op rectified the problem and returned the mobile phone to the complainant but after some time, the same problem again developed and the complainant deposited the mobile phone with the service centre on 24.2.2016, vide job sheet i.e. Ex.C4 showing the problem in the ‘Touch pad’ of the mobile phone. Since 25.2.2016, the mobile phone is lying with the service centre who has neither rectified the problem nor returned the mobile phone to the complainant. As the defect occurred in the mobile phone during warranty period, Op was bound to rectify the problem, which it  failed to do and it amounted to deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of Ops. Moreover, failure on the part of the Ops to contest the claim of the complainant shows the indifferent attitude of the Ops to redress the grievance of the complainant.
7. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we accept the complaint with a direction to Ops no.2&3 to rectify the defect in the mobile phone up to the satisfaction of the complainant and if that is not possible to replace it with a new one of the same make with requisite warranty and if that is not possible to refund the amount of Rs.6450/- the same being the price of the mobile phone .Ops no.2&3 are further directed to pay a sum of Rs.2000/- as compensation for the harassment undergone by the complainant and also to pay a sum of Rs.1000/-as cost of litigation. Order be complied by  Ops no.2&3 within a period of 45 days of the receipt of certified copy of this order.
8.  

Dated: 12.7.2016.

                             Neelam Gupta                        A.P.S.Rajput

                         Member                              President