BEFORE THE DIST.CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KHURDA, BHUBANESWAR:
-ooOoo-
C.D.CASE NO. 101/2017
Debasis Behera,
Son of Sridhar Behera,
At-Kochila Kana Sahi, Po – Gurujanga,
Dist- Khordha, Pin-752055
… Complainant -Vrs-
- ACCEL FRONTLINE GLOBAL IT SERVICE LIMITED,
Through its Service Centre in-charge
MrSailendra Patra.,143, Sahid Nagar,
In front of Kalyani Mandap(Ground Floor)
Bhubaneswar – 751007
- Managing Director, INNOCOM ELECTRONICS INDIA PVT. LTD.
JMD Megapolis, Sohan Road, Sector 48,
Gurgaon, Haryana-122004
… Opp.Parties
For the complainant … Mr.A.B.Majhi & Associates
For the OPs … Exparte
DATE OF FILING : 30/03/2017
DATE OF DISPOSAL: 24/04/2018
O R D E R
MISS K. NAYAK, MEMBER :
1. Alleging deficiency of service, complainant Debasis Behera, in his complaint, filed by him, has prayed for a direction to the opposite parties to pay compensation of Rs.15,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.5,000/- towards litigation cost.
2. The case of the complainant is that, he has purchased one mobile set through on line from Opposite Party No. 2 by paying a sum of Rs.6,499/- on 01.03.2016. After about five months, the mobile set gave some USB problem for which the complainant handed over the mobile set to the OP.No.1 on 29.08.2016 for repair. Again it persist the same problem and the complainant on 28.09.2016 visited to OP to rectify the defective mobile set in question. Time and again he visited to O.P. No.1 to rectify the defects but he could not rectify the same but the Op replied that the set has been sent to Bangalore for repair. Finding no alternative the complainant approached the Consumer Counselling Centre and sent a notice through the counselling Centre to the Opposite Parties. In response to the notice of the complainant the Opposite Party No 1 came and settled the issues by replacing a new mobile set on 09.03.2017 with sealed cover. The complainant while opening the new mobile set, it was seen that the set was a used one as there was a contact list and massages which are in Tamil language, which amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. For this the complainant filed this case.
3. Despite issue of notice the Opposite Parties did not enter its appearance and failed to file written version and did not contest the case. Hence set ex-parte vide order dated 06.02.2018
4. On perusal of the complaint petition and the documents relied upon by the complainant clearly reveals that the complainant purchased the mobile set from OP No.2 and the retail invoice filed in support of the case as annexure-2 does not correspond to it. Moreover the Opposite parties settled the issues by replacing a new mobile set to the complainant and the complainant has nowhere mentioned that the replaced mobile set in question was old and used one. It reveals there is no deficiency in service. Again the issues regarding ‘used mobile set’ the complainant neither complained the matter before the Opposite Parties nor filed any such document to corroborate the case. Therefore, in our considered view, the complainant has failed to establish that the Opposite Parties are guilty of deficiency in service. Hence we hold that the complainant is not entitled to any relief. Hence ordered that :-
ORDER
The complaint is dismissed exparte against the OPs without cost. No order as to compensation.
The order is pronounced on this day the 24th April, 2018 in the open Forum under the seal & signature of the Forum.
(MISS K.NAYAK) MEMBER
Dictated & corrected by me
Member (W)
I agree I agree
Member President
Transcribed by Smt.Mamata Kanungo, Sr.Steno:
