Adv.for the complainant -  D.Biswal

          Adv.for the O.P   -               S.K.Mishra

                                  Date of filing of the case –  14.01.2016

                                                                                               Date of order                     -08.03.2017

JUDGMENT

Sri A.K.Purohit, President 

1.   The case of the complainant is that, he had purchased a Panasonic Eluga switch phone from the O.P.No. 1 for a consideration of Rs.19,990 on dated 28.08.2015. After use of the said mobile phone,  the rear facing main camera was found defective for which the same was sent to the service center by the OP.No. 1 vide service No. KJSPOR 048915P 1643 but the mobile phone was returned without removing the defects. To this the complainant had sent an email to the manufacturer but the complainant was not provided with any service nor the defect in the phone has been removed. Hence the complaint.  

2.   Although notice has been served on OP.No.2 & 3 neither they appears nor have filed their version. OP.No. 1 contested the case by filing his version. According to the OP.1 he has no role to play with the servicing of the mobile phone and stated that he has no knowledge about the defect in the camera of the mobile phone, and even if there is any defect it is the responsibility of the manufacturer either to repair or replace the same.

3.    Heard both the parties. Perused the pleadings and material available on record. It is an admitted fact that the complainant had purchased a Panasonic Mobile Eluga Switch phone from the O.P.1 for a consideration of Rs. 19,990/- vide Retail invoice No. 2285 dated 28.8.15. It is also evident from the document filed by the complainant that there was defect in the mobile phone for which the same has been sent to the service center vide service No. KJSOR048915P1643, by the dealer OP.No.1. Perused the Retail invoice issued by the OP.No.1, wherein the retailer declares that, no warranty is covered if liquid fallen on material or crack or excess charging. Therefore defect in the camera of the phone covers the warranty and the O.Ps. are duty bound to provide the service to the complainant. The O.P. has not produce any evidence to show that, proper service was provided to the complainant and the phone is a defect free one. During a very short period of its purchase the camera of the phone was found defective and the same has not been repaired by the O.Ps. which shows that there was an inherent defect in the mobile phone. In the present smart phone age camera in the phone is very essential and when the camera of the hone is defective the same is of no use. Therefore in the absence of any evidence to show that the mobile phone is repairable, order for its replacement will meet the ends of justice.

4.   With these material available on record it is evident that during warranty period the O.Ps. have not provided any service to the complainant which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.

            In the result the O.Ps. are directed to replace with a defect free mobile phone of the same brand and same value with an extended warranty to the complainant after receiving the defective mobile phone from the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order. In the event the same brand is not available the O.Ps. are directed to refund the price of Rs. 19,990/- to the complainant within the aforesaid period. The O.Ps. are further directed to pay Rs. 1000/-(one thousand to the complainant towards cost.  

ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN FORUM THIS THE 8^TH   DAY OF MARCH’2017.

    Sd/-                                                                  Sd/-                                                                    Sd/-

(S.Rath)                                                           (G.K.Rath)                                                         (A.K.Purohit)

MEMBER.                                                        MEMBER.                                                           PRESIDENT.