DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOZHIKODE
PRESENT : Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN, M.Com, LLB : PRESIDENT
Smt. PRIYA.S, BAL, LLB, MBA (HRM) : MEMBER
Sri.V. BALAKRISHNAN, M Tech, MBA, LL.B, FIE: MEMBER
Friday the 30th day of June 2023
C.C.87/2017
Complainant
Rajesh P.G,
Kavumpurath House,
Thalayad (PO),
Unnikulam (via),
Kozhikode – 673 574.
Opposite Parties
- Manager
‘Rytham’ IInd Floor,
Darussalam Complex, - ( Deleted from party array as
Puthiyara (PO), per order dated 31-08-2018.)
Kozhikode – 673 004.
(By.Adv.Smt.Shameena A.K)
2. Manager
3G Mobile World,
BP – 4/212 B Kallanki Complex,
Vaikundam, Balussery -673 612.
(By. Adv.Sri.Dilkhush V.K)
3. Associate Director
Panasonic India Pvt Ltd,
First Floor, ABV Tower, IFFCO Chappok, - (Deleted from party array as
M.G Road, Sector 25, Gurgaon -122 001, per order dated 31-08-2018.)
Hariyana.
(By. Adv.Sri.G.Praveen Kumar)
ORDER
By Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN – PRESIDENT.
This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
- The case of the complainant, in brief, is as follows:
On 14-03-2016 the complainant purchased a Panasonic mobile phone from the shop of the second opposite party paying Rs.11,000/-. The touch pad of the mobile phone became defective and on 27-12-2016, as per the direction of the second opposite party, it was entrusted to the first opposite party for service/repairs. After service/repairs, the hand set was returned to him on 29-12-2016. On 05-01-2017 the same complaint repeated and it was repaired by the first opposite party and returned on 28-01-2017. But the same complaint persisted and on 30-01-2017 it was again entrusted to the first opposite party and on the next day a complaint was registered as instructed by the first opposite party. But till now, the device is not repaired or returned. There is no proper reply for the opposite parties. Though he approached the second opposite party, no positive action was taken. Hence the complaint for refund of Rs.12,249/- which includes the price of the handset Rs.11,000/- and insurance premium Rs.1,249/-. The complainant is also claiming compensation of Rs.7,000/-.
- The opposite parties one and two resisted the complaint by filing written version wherein they have denied all the allegations and claims made against them. The third opposite party was set ex-parte.
- The first opposite party in their written version has contended that all the complaints were properly attended to by them. According to them, the complainant refused to take back the device after repairs insisting for replacement with a new one.
- The second opposite party in their version has admitted the purchase of the hand set in question by the complainant from their shop. According to them, the complainant never approached them and he might have approached the first opposite party directly. It is contended that there is no allegation against them in the complaint and they are entitled to be exonerated.
- The points that arise for determination in this complaint are;
(1). Whether there was any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties, as alleged?
(2). Reliefs and costs.
- Evidence in this case was recorded by our learned predecessors- in -office which consists of the oral evidence of PW1 and Exts A1 to A3 on the side of the complainant. The second opposite party filed proof affidavit, but he was not seen cross examined.
- After closing the evidence of the complainant, the case as against the first and third opposite parties was settled between the complainant and the first and third opposite parties and Rs.13,000/- was paid to the complainant. The complainant has made endorsement to that effect on the complaint on 31-08-2019 whereupon our learned predecessors- in -office deleted the first and third opposite parties from the party array and the complaint as against the second opposite party was ordered to be proceeded with. So what now remains is the complaint as against the second opposite party only.
- Heard.
- Point No. 1: As already stated, what remains is the complaint as against the second opposite party and the point to be considered is as to whether there was any deficiency of service on the part of the second opposite party. PW1 is none other than the complainant and he deposed in terms of the averments in the complaint. ExtA1 is the copy of the tax invoice dated 14-03-2016 issued by the second opposite party, Ext.A2 is the copy of the job sheet dated 30-01-2017 and Ext.A3 is the copy of the customer receipt.
- The second opposite party is the dealer and the purchase of the handset in question by the complainant from their shop on 14-03-2016 for Rs.11,000/- is not disputed. The specific case of the second opposite party is that after the purchase, the complainant never approached them with any complaint and he might have approached the first opposite party service centre directly. Going by the averments in the complaint and the evidence in hand, it can be seen that the complainant has not made any specific allegation with regard to any deficient service on the part of the second opposite party. Even according to the averments in the complaint, on reporting his concern with regard to the touch pad, the second opposite party directed him to the first opposite party, who is the service provider. Moreover, the second opposite party has filed proof affidavit denying all the allegations, but he was not cross examined by the complainant. In a consumer case, the onus to prove deficiency of service is on the complainant. Without proof of deficiency, the opposite party cannot be held liable for deficiency. In the instant case, there is no proof of any deficiency on the part of the second opposite party and consequently the complaint must fail.
- Point No.2: In view of the finding on the above point, the complainant is not entitled to claim and get any relief as against the second opposite party.
In the result, the complaint as against the second opposite party stands dismissed. However, no order as to costs.
Pronounced in open Commission on this, the 30th day of June, 2023.
Date of Filing: 09-03-2017.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
APPENDIX
Exhibits for the Complainant :
ExtA1 - Copy of the tax invoice dated 14-03-2016 issued by the second opposite party.
Ext.A2 - Copy of the job sheet dated 30-01-2017.
Ext.A3 - Copy of the customer receipt.
Exhibits for the Opposite Party
Nil.
Witnesses for the Complainant
PW1 - Rajesh P.G (Complainant)
Witnesses for the opposite parties
Nil.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
True copy,
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar.
