DIST.CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

BHUBANESWAR:

C.D. NO.300/ 2013

Malaya Kumar Barik, aged about 31 years,

S/o –  Duryodhan Barik, At- Chhanaghara, PO- Kushumati,

PS/ Via- jatni, Dist- Khurda, Pin – 752050, Authorized Representative

Of Miss Pooja Pattnaik, aged about 25 years, D/o Biswaranjan Pattnaik, Plot No.237,

Unit – III, Kharvelanagar. 

                                                                                                ….       Complainant

-Vrs.-

1. Mobility Ltd., S. Global Knowledge Park, 19A & 19B,

Sector-125, Noida, Pin – 101301, Uttar Pradesh,

through its Managing Director.

2. Micronix Services Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.1209, Bomikhala,

Cuttack Road, Bhubaneswar – 751010, Dist- Khordha,

Through its Managing Director.

3. Radiant Distributors, Shop No.1072 & 1073, Ground Floor, PRS Lane,

Nagarathpet Cross, Bangalore – 560002,

Through its Proprietor / Authorized Signatory

                                                                                                ….       Opp. Parties   

For the complainant                :           Sri K.C.Prusty (Advocate)

For the O.P.1.                         :           Sri G.Mishra & Associates (Adv.)

For the OPs 2 & 3                   :           Exparte

DATE OF FILING                :           08/11/2013

DATE OF ORDER                :           28/11/2023

ORDER

K.C.RATH, PRESIDENT

1.         This is an application U/s 12 of the C.P.Act, 1986.

2.         The complainant’s case in brief is that,  the complainant’s wife purchased a mobile hand set which is a SPICE product. Although the mobile set was purchased by the wife of the complainant but the complainant was using that mobile hand set with the approval of his wife.  There was warranty of 12 months for the said mobile hand set. Within three months from the date of its purchase, the mobile set  went out of order. He took it to the authorized service centre but he could not remove the defect permanently. Again on 23/05/2013, the mobile set went out of order. It suffered from various defects such as   automatic switch off, hanging problem,  SIM error, etc. He again took the mobile set to the authorized service centre but the defect could not be removed. He made correspondences with the OPs  in order to replace the defective mobile hand set but they did not respond. As it amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the complainant filed this case.

3.         On the other hand, the OPs 2 & 3   were set exparte and  OP.1 filed written version contending therein that the complaint is not maintainable. It is mis-conceived and groundless. However, the OP.1 evasively denied the allegations made by the complainant in the complaint petition. Rather, he relied upon the  doctrine of CAVEAT EMPTOR and pleaded that the complaint is devoid of any merit , as such it is liable to be dismissed with cost. 

4          Perused the materials on record.  The complainant  has produced the tax invoice showing that  his wife purchased the mobile hand set for a consideration of Rs.6,740/-. He has also produced the photocopy of service job-sheet issued by the authorized service centre.  The job sheet shows that there were several defects in the mobile set. There was SIM error,  problem of  hang & automatic switch of, therefore, the app was not responding.  Taking all these documents into consideration, this Commission finds that, the mobile set in question has some inherent defects, which were noticed well within three months from the date of its  purchase. Under the terms of warranty, the defects so pointed out should have been removed by the authorized service centre but it could not do it. The application of doctrine   CAVEAT EMPTOR has also certain exceptions. The goods sold  must be fit for the  purpose for which it is sold. If the mobile set had inherent defects which render the mobile set unfit for the purpose, then, the doctrine of   CAVEAT EMPTOR will not come into operation. Considering the pleadings of the complainant and the OP.1 and the documents available on record, this Commission is of the opinion that the mobile set had some inherent defects, which should have been repaired or replaced. But the matter relates to the year 2013. By this time, the repair of the said mobile is meaningless. In this backdrop,  it is ordered.  

ORDER

The complaint is hereby dismissed exparte against the OP.2 but allowed exparte against the OP.3 and allowed on contest against the OP.1.   The OPs 1 & 3  are directed jointly & severally  to provide a new mobile hand set of the same brand/ price/ configuration / model to the complainant, or in alternative, to refund the consideration amount i.e. Rs.6,740/- to the complainant. In addition to that, the OPs.1 & 3  are directed to pay compensation of Rs. 5,000/-   (Rupees five thousand) only  towards mental agony suffered by the complainant and a  sum of Rs.2000/-  (Rupees  two  thousand) only towards litigation expenses.  The order be complied with by the OPs 1 & 3 jointly & severally    within a stipulated period of  one month  from the date of communication of this order,   failing which the complainant will be  at liberty to execute the order  against the OPs 1 & 3    in accordance with law.

The order is pronounced on this day the  28^th November,  2023  under the seal & signature of the President and Member (W) of the Commission.

                                                                                                (K.C.RATH)

                                                                                                 PRESIDENT

 Dictated & corrected by me

               President                                                                                    

I agree                                                                                                

(S.Tripathy)                                                                                        

Member (W)                                                                             

Transcribed by Smt. M.Kanungo, Sr.Steno