Delhi

East Delhi

CC/918/2014

CHANDER PRAKASH - Complainant(s)

Versus

PRINCE AUDIO - Opp.Party(s)

11 May 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO.  918/14

 

Shri Chandra Prakash

S/o Shri Ravi Shankar Sharma

R/o C-107A, Gali No. 6

West Karawal Nagar, Near Hanuman Mandir

Delhi – 110 094                                                                                 ….Complainant

Vs.

1. Prince Audio & Video

Through its Proprietor

E-55-A, Main Vikas Marg

Laxmi Nagar, Delhi – 110 092

 

2. M/s. Panasonic Corporation

Through M/s. Jaina Marketing and Associates

Through its Manager

Office at D-170, Okhla Industrial Area

Phase-I, New Delhi – 110 020

 

3. Customer Service

Panasonic India Private Ltd.

Through its Manager

Service Centre Head Office

At D-172, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase – I

New Delhi – 110 020                                                                          ….Opponents

 

Date of Institution: 20.10.2014

Judgment Reserved on: 11.05.2017

Judgment Passed on: 17.05.2017

 

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari  (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

JUDGEMENT

            This complaint has been filed by Shri Chandra Prakash, complainant against Prince Audio & Video (OP-1), M/s. Panasonic Corporation (OP-2) and Customer Service – Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd. (OP-3) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act , 1986.

2.         Briefly stated facts of the complaint are that on 02.11.2013, the complainant had purchased one Panasonic Smart Phone T-11 vide retail invoice no. 40583 bearing IMEI 20357009050087980 from OP-1, the retailer for Rs. 8,800/-.  On 03.11.2013, the complainant started facing problem with call and data functioning as well as over-heating of the handset.  An email was sent to OP-3, which was replied on 04.11.2013 asking the complainant to deposit the smart phone with New Bhardwaj Communication Service Centre at Rewari for which job-sheet no. KJASPHRO121113K1881 dated 12.11.2013 was issued.  The complainant was informed that there was problem with the battery, which was replaced and handed over to the complainant after one month, but the same problems persisted.  Again, the complainant was asked to deposit the set for further repair and investigation for which he deposited it with Shankla Telecom at Sukhrali Gurgaon, vide job-sheet                            no. KJASPHR1121213K2091 vide APS code KJASPHR112 dated 17.12.2013, which was sent to the head office.  The complainant received his handset on 24.01.2014, but with the same problem. 

            Thereafter, the complainant approached service centre on several occasions as on 04.03.2014 and 18.04.2014 with problems of over-heating of phone, Hindi font not displayed completely, HD video not playing properly, phone set hangs and battery discharged rapidly.  The grievance of the complainant was that his handset had manufacturing defects, which could not be removed despite repairs by the service centre.

            Legal notice dated 11.08.2014 was sent to OPs, which was neither replied nor complied with.  Therefore, the complainant has prayed for directions to OPs to pay Rs. 8,800/- being the cost of the handset alongwith interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of purchase, Rs. 50,000/- for mental agony and pain and Rs. 20,000/- towards cost of litigation.

            The complainant has annexed retail invoice dated 02.11.2013, issued by OP-1, correspondence via emails between the complainant and OP-2,    job-sheets dated 12.11.2013, 17.12.2013, 04.03.2014, 18.04.2014, 19.07.2014 and legal notice dated 11.08.2014 with the complaint.

3.         Reply on behalf of OP-2 and 3 was filed, where they took the plea that the complainant had approached the service centre for the first time on 12.11.2013 which was purchased on 02.11.2013 and the said handset had been repaired and handed over to the complainant.  They also pleaded that there was no manufacturing defect in the handset.  It was stated on behalf of OP that the handset was under warranty for normal use and service i.e. one year for mobile phone devices and six months for battery.  It was also stated that the complainant had purchased the handset on 11.08.2013 (which seems to be a typographical error) after checking and testing the same.  Hence, prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. 

4.         Rejoinder to the WS was filed by the complainant, where he reiterated the contents of the complaint and denied that of the WS filed by OP-2 and 3.

5.         Evidence by way of affidavit was filed by the complainant, where he examined himself and deposed on oath the contents of the complaint and reliance was placed on copy of the retail invoice (Ex.CW1/A), emails and    job-sheet dated 12.11.2013 (Ex.CW1/B (colly.) & Ex.CW1/C), copy of emails and job-sheet dated 17.12.2013 (Ex.CW1/D (colly.) & Ex.CW1/E) respectively, emails and job-sheet dated 09.04.2014 (Ex.CW1/F (colly.) & Ex.CW1/G) respectively, manual job-sheet and online job-sheet dated 22.04.2014 (Ex.CW1/H & Ex.CW1/J), copy of job-sheet dated 19.07.2014 (Ex.CW1/K), legal notice alongwith postal receipts track results (Ex.CW1/L, Ex.CW1/M and Ex.CW1/N) (colly.) respectively.

            OP-2 examined Shri Kapil Kumar, AR of the Jaina Marketing and Associates, who reiterated the contents of their WS, on affidavit.

6.         We have heard the arguments on behalf of Ld. Counsel for the complainant and OP.  Perusal of record shows that the complainant had purchased the handset on 02.11.2013, which is also admitted by OP.  Immediately, the complainant started facing issues with the battery and heating problem, which can be seen from the job-sheet dated 12.11.2013 and it continued to persist in all the job-sheets annexed with the complaint.  Further, the complainant has written mails to OP-1 for redressal of his grievance right from 03.11.2013. 

            It is admitted case that the complainant had approached OP’s service centre on 12.11.2013 i.e. within 10 days of purchase and thereafter on several other occasions.  This fact is substantiated by emails exchanged between the complainant and OP-2. 

            Thus, it is clear that the handset was in warranty period and was sent to the company head office by service centre for repairs, it seems that the handset had some defect, which could not be removed despite several repairs.  Hence, we allow the present complaint and direct OP-2 to refund      Rs. 8,800/-, being the cost of the handset alongwith 9% interest from the date of purchase.  Complainant shall handover the handset to OP-2 on compliance of this order by OP-2.  We further award Rs. 5,000/- compensation for mental pain and harassment as the complainant has been deprived of enjoying the hassle free use of his handset.  This includes cost of litigation.        

            This order be complied within a period of 45 days.  If not complied, then Rs. 5,000/- shall also carry interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of order.

            Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

 

(DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                                 (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)

       Member                                                                    Member              

     

  

   (SUKHDEV SINGH)

             President