Date of filing:-18/07/2016.
Date of Order:-06/04/2018
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM(COURT)
B A R G A R H.
Consumer Complaint No. 26 of 2016.
Sureswar Majhi, S/o. Late Hanu Majhi, aged about 54(fifty four) years, Occupation- Teachership, R/o. Village and P.o. Bhoipali, P.s./Tahasil- Bheden, Dist. Bargarh ..... ..... ..... ..... Complainant.
-: V e r s u s :-
LAVA International Ltd (Importer) A-56, Sector-64, Noida-201301, U.P. INDIA
M/S. Roop Sringar, Main Road, Bargarh, P.o./P.s./Dist. Bargarh (Odisha).
M/S. Bhoi Communication, LAVA CARE, In front of Kalimandir, Bargarh, P.o./P.s./Dist. Bargarh (Odisha). ..... ..... ..... Opposite Parties.
Counsel for the Parties:-
For the Complainant :- Sri S.N. Padhi, Advocate with others Advocates.
For the Opposite Party No.1(one) :- Ex-parte.
For the Opposite Party No.2 :-Sri B.D. Saraf, Advocate with others Advocates.
For the Opposite Party No.3 :- Sri L. Behera, Advocate with others Advocates.
-: P R E S E N T :-
Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... P r e s i d e n t.
Ajanta Subhadarsinee ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... M e m b e r (W).
Dt.06/04/2018. -: J U D G E M E N T:-
Presented by Ajanta Subhadarsinee, Member(w):-
The Complainant has filed this case U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 against the Opposite Parties alleging deficiency in service and adopting unfair trade practice.
The brief fact of the case is that the Complainant has purchased a LAVA Mobile smart phone Model no. Magnum X 604 on Dt. 10/07/2015 from Opposite Party No.2(two) i.e. M/s Roop Sringar, Main Road, Bargarh on the payment of Rs. 10,500/-(Rupees ten thousand five hundred)only being the receipt No. 10432 Dt. 10/07/2015. Whereon the Opposite Party No.1(one) and No.3(three) are the Lava International Ltd. the importer of smart phone and M/s Bhoi Communication, Lava care, the authorized customer care under the Opposite Party No.1(one), respectively. On Dt. 07/07/2016, the Complainant has found some defect in the display of the said mobile set and Complained the same before the Opposite Party No.2(two) on the next day i.e. on Dt. 08/07/2016, but the Opposite party No.2(two) was suggested him to come on Dt.10/07/2016 as the defect will be rectified within one hour. Then the Complainant again visited to the Opposite Party No.2(two) on Dt. 10/07/2016 morning to repair his mobile set, but the Opposite Party No.2(two) advised him to meet Opposite Party No.3(three) for the same. Then the Complainant proceeded to Opposite Party No.3(three), who told him that the display of his mobile set needs replacement and the warranty of the said mobile set also not reflected in the system, so he has to be paid Rs. 5,562/-(Rupees five thousand five hundred sixty two)only for repairement. Then the Complainant contacted with Opposite Party No.2(two), but at last both the Opposite Parties No.2(two) and 3(three), were refused to repaire the mobile set without proper cost. Hence this case.
As per the Complainant, the Opposite Parties are liable to cure the problem of the above mobile set or to replace it with a new one and such act and conduct of the Opposite Parties towards the Complainant amounting unfair trade practice and deficiency in consumer service for which they are liable to compensate him for the loss and harassment caused by them besides litigation expenses so for the same he has claimed Rs. 50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand)only for mental agony and Rs. 20,000/-(Rupees twenty thousand)only towards harassment and litigation expenses.
The Complainant has relied upon the following documents to establish his case :-
Xerox copy of money receipt bearing number 10432 Dt.10/07/2015 issued by M/s. Roop Sringar infavour of the Complainant.
Xerox copy of the warranty card of Lava Model No. Magnum X 604.
Having gone through the Complaint, documents and hearing from his advocate, the case was admitted and notices were served on the Opposite Parties. On being noticed the Opposite Parties No.2(two) and 3(three) appeared before the forum and filed their versions through their advocates. But Opposite Party No.1(one) did not appear nor filed his version though due notice was served on him. Consequently the Forum was pleased to set him Ex-parte on Dt 20/03/2017. But at the final stage of the case the Opposite Party No.1(one) has sent his version, so the version of the Opposite Party No.1(one) was not considered and there by rejected.
The Opposite Party No.2(two) in his version has admitted almost all the allegations made by the Complainant except one thing that the Complainant had gone to him for repairing his mobile set on Dt. 08/07/2016, Again the Opposite Party No.2(two) contends in his version that the warranty period of the mobile set was for one year i.e. from Dt. 10/07/2015 to 09/07/2016. So he was unable to repair the same set without any charge and he is not liable for any deficiency in service to the Complainant.
The Opposite Party No.3(three) in his version stated that on Dt. 10/07/2016 the Complainant had gone to the service centre i.e. Opposite Party No.3(three) for repairing his mobile set and did not show him the warranty card of the said mobile set and provided him only the money receipt of it, which was out of warranty period for which the Complainant is not entitled for any free service and in that regard he has shown the Complainant the scan copy of email and the Opposite Party No.3(three) disclosed before the Complainant that on the payment of some charges they are ready to replace the display system of the hand set. As per the Opposite Party No.3(three) the Complainant refused to replace the display system on payment of charges and leave the service centre without repairing his mobile set. Therefore there is no deficiency in service, on his part and he is the mis-joinder of this case and unnecessarily dragged to the court of Law.
The Opposite party No. 3(three) has filed some documents to prove his case:-
Xerox copy of money receipt bill bearing no. 10432 Dt. 10/07/2015 (1 sheet).
Scan copies of email Dt. 10/07/2016 (2 sheets).
On Dt. 09/08/2017 the Complainant has filed a petition through his Advocate praying therein that the Opposite Party No.2(two) may kindly be directed to produce the purchase tax invoice of the said mobile set issued by his distributer to Opposite Party No.2(two), at the time of supply of the same product which was objected by Opposite Party No.2(two).
The Forum heard the matter from the parties in pursuance to the petition filed by the Complainant and objection filed by the Opposite Party No.2(two). Perused both the petition and documents annexed to the case record, for clarification of the case Forum has directed the Opposite Party No.2(two) to produce the tax invoice of the said mobile set which was issued by the distributor to the Opposite Party No.2(two) before the Forum.
On Dt. 18/12/2017, the Opposite Party No.2(two) has filed a memo stating therein that he is willing to remove the defects prevailed in the said mobile set. So the Forum has directed the Opposite Party No.2(two) to collect the said hand set from the Complainant and do the needful repairement of the same and return it in well functioned condition within 15(fifteen) days from the date of order.
Again on Dt. 07/02/2018 the Opposite Party No.2(two) has filed a memo stating therein that he has repaired the said mobile set and handed over the same to the Complainant on Dt. 27/01/2018 through his advocates. Thus the Opposite Party No.2(two) has rectified the defect prevailed in the mobile set and the matter was settled by the parties.
Going through the entire case record, pleadings of the Parties and documents and hearing from the parties. Forum found that Opposite Parties are liable for rendering deficiency in service to the Complainant, and the Complainant is entitled to get reliefs for the loss and mental harassment caused to him with the litigation expenses. Though the Opposite Party No.2(two) has repaired the mobile set after filing of the case, he is responsible for the mental harassment of the Complainant for the period of one year and above. The Complainant has suffered a mental agony from Dt. 07/07/2016. i.e when the mobile set got de-functioned till Dt. 27/01/2018, when the Opposite Party No.2(two) handed over the same to him after repairement.
Having gone through all the facts evidences, assertions and counter assertions of the parties, the Forum comes to a conclusion and ordered as follows :
O R D E R
The Opposite Parties are jointly and severally directed to pay an amount of Rs. 2,000/-(Rupees two thousand) only to the Complainant in lieu of the mental and physical harassment and litigation expenses caused to him by the Opposite Parties, within thirty days from the date of receipt of the order in default of which the amount will carry interest @ 10%(ten percent) per annum till the actual realization of the amount.
Hence, the Complaint is allowed against the Opposite Parties, accordingly the order is pronounced in the Open forum today i.e. on Dt. 06/04/2018 and disposed off.
Typed to my dictation
and corrected by me.
( Ajanta Subhadarsinee)
M e m b e r (W) I agree,
(Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra)
P r e s i d e n t.
