Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 686
Instituted on : 06.12.2019
Decided on : 14.02.2023
Parveen Phougat aged-30 yrs. S/o Sh. Subhash Singh, R/o VPO Bhalout, Distt. Rohtak.
.......................Complainant.
Vs.
- Flipkart, 56/18, B-Block, 9th Floor, Garvebhavipalya, House Road, Banglora, Karnatka-560068 through its Manager.
- Panasonic Technologies Limited, Jaina Marketing & associates (L4), D-173, Phase-1, Okhla Ind. New Delhi-110020 through its Manager.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR. VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER
Present: Sh. Parveen Phougat, Advocate complainant in person.
Shri Nitin Goyal, Advocate for the opposite party No. 1(defence struck off vide order dated 11.10.2021.)
Sh. Parmod Kumar, Advocate for opposite party No. 2.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case as per the complainant are that he had purchased a mobile phone of Panasonic Model Eluga A3 Pro (Gold 32 GB) on 15.12.2018 for an amount of Rs.7300/- from the opposite party no. 1. At the time of purchasing of said handset the opposite party no. 1 has informed the complainant that if any technical problems occurs in the handset within warranty period, the same will be sort out by changing the set with a new one. But after some time, the phone started giving problems as its voice become very low and sometimes it hangs so the complainant tried to approach the service center but no service center found in the Rohtak city. It is further submitted that complainant also informed to the company i.e. opposite party no. 2 through email but he did not receive any reply to the said emails. Hence, there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Hence, this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to replace the said handset with new one or in alternate to pay a sum of Rs.7300/- the cost of the handset alongwith compensation of Rs.50000/- as damages & deficiency in service and Rs.21,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notices were issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party No. 2 in its reply has submitted that no repair record is found against the mentioned IMEI Number in the complaint. It is denied that customer was unable to trace the service Center at Rohtak, hence he sent legal notice through Panasonic helpline ID. The toll free number of the answering party is always available. It is further submitted that email reply was also sent to the customer on dated 28.12.2019 for invoice copy and another reply was sent on dated 29.12.2019 alongwith ASC detail and asked the customer to visit our ASC for further support. But the customer did not visit the service center and filed the present complaint. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party no.2 prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs. However, opposite party no. 1 has not filed any reply despite availing several opportunities. As such, defence of opposite party no. 1 was struck off vide order dated 11.10.2021 of this Commission.
4. Complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5 and has closed his evidence on dated 30.05.2022. Ld. counsel for the opposite party No. 2 has tendered affidavit Ex. RW1/A and closed his evidence on 30.11.2022.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
6. In the present case, it is not disputed that complainant had purchased the mobile phone on 15.12.2018. As per the complainant, his mobile phone started giving problems as its voice become very low and sometimes there was hanging problem in his mobile phone. The complainant tried to approach the service Centre at Rohtak but no service center was found at Rohtak District. So the complainant is facing problems for 3 months. A legal notice was served on 01.11.2019.
7. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that neither the complainant has placed on record any document regarding the complaint made by him through toll free number or through any mail . Moreover defect has not been properly described in the complaint. Complainant never approached to the service centre or the manufacturing company prior to the legal notice. Moreover, at the time of arguments ld. counsel for the opposite party no.2 has placed on record a photocopy of document as ‘Annexure-JN-A’, as per which there are two service centers at Rohtak. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. As such present complaint stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
8. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
14.02.2023.
.....................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Tripti Pannu, Member
……………………………….
Vijender Singh, Member
