DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: BHADRAK
Dated the 3rd day of June, 2019
C.D Case No. 85 of 2016
Present 1. Shri Raghunath Kar, President
2. Shri Basanta Kumar Mallick, Member
3. Afsara Begum, Member
Smt. Pusparani Nayak
W/o: Sri Amulya Kumar Nayak
Vill: Jagadalpur,
Po: Kalasuni,
Ps: Bhadrak (R),
Dist: Bhadrak
Prop- M/S Omm Mt. Electronics Sales & Service
At/Po: Ranital, Ps: Bhadrak (R), Dist: Bhdarak
……………………. Complainant
(Versus)
Abhinash Jain
Director Arise India Ltd.,
B- 38, Jain Chork, Mangalpuri, Palam
New Delhi- 110045
…………………………..Opp. Parties
Counsel For Complainant: Sri P. Lenka & Others, Adv
Counsel For the OP: Set Ex-parte
Date of hearing: 17.10.2016
Date of order: 03.06.2019
RAGHUNATH KAR, PRESIDENT
This dispute arises out of the complaint filed by the complainant alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice.
The facts of the complaint are to the effect that the complainant is the complainant is the proprietor of M/S OMM Mt. Electronic at Ranital, Bhadrak and deal with Retail Business of Electronic goods. That as per the order of complaint the respondents supplied electronic goods such 21 Tubular Battery, LED TV, Home UPS to complainant. The complainant purchased schedule electronics goods from the respondent company and paid cost of these articles to the respondent company through bank cheques. The complainant requested to respondent for rendering of service of defect battery and LED TV. As per the terms and conditions of the respondent the company, company shall render free service of complaint battery and LED TV within warranty period. But after getting information from the complainant about the service and to replace defect battery, they did not turn up for rendering service. Now 21 number of defect battery, 10 nos. of PDI, one 32 LED TV PDI are kept in the complaint godown for service. One LED TV which has been passed for replacement is lying in complainant shop room for replacement. There by the complainant sustained of loss Rs 4,00,000/-. As per the service terms and conditions the respondent company should free service of above electronic goods within warranty period. The complainant approached and requested respondent company and Sales Manager of respondent for several times but they did not turn up for rendering service. The customers of complainant approached him for replacement of battery. The complainant replaced the defected battery to his customers by sustaining hues loss, finding no other way. In spite of that the OP company is became deaf year to this matter. The defect batteries and the LED TV have got manufacturing defect after proper verification and examination the local export mechanic has opined that there was manufacturing defect in the battery as it could not be prepared by any mechanic, the same is required for a replacement. The complainant requested the OP to take back the defect batteries and LED TV for rendering service to this defect battery through email but there was no reply from side of the respondent. Further the complainant requested the OP on 28.10.2014, 25.02.2015, 16.10.2015, 17.10.2015, 30.10.2015 and lastly on 06.11.2015. This type of activities of the respondent is amounts to deficiency of service. The respondent is liable to pay compensation to the complainant for the harassment, troubles, loss of business and mental agony suffered by arising directly out of the breach of warranty and breach of duty on the part of respondent. Hence the complainant has sought for the following reliefs as follows.
1. The OP be directed to refund Rs 3,00,000/- to the complainant for the said defect battery and LED TV.
2. The OP be directed to pay Rs 50,000/- for mental agony and harassment to the complainant.
3. Rs 20,000/- for cost of the litigation be paid by the OP to the complainant along with the interest Rs 30,000/-.
4. The complainant be awarded other reliefs what he is entitled to.
Documents filed by the complainant (Xerox copies):-
1. Chart of the sales problem by Mt. Electronics- 3 sheets.
2. Account statement- Annexure- 1- 1 sheet.
3. Laser account- Annexure- 2- 1 sheet.
4. Item wise sales register/energy division for the period of 01.07.2013 to 30.09.2013- Annexure- 3- 1 sheet.
5. Laser account- Annexure- 4- 1 sheet.
6. Laser account 01.04.2013, 31.03.2014- Annexure 5 & 6- 2 sheets.
7. Laser account- Annexure- 7 & 8- 2 sheets.
8. Tax invoice dt. 14.08.2014- Annexure- 9- 1 sheet.
9. Driver copy vide consignment No- 4868- 1 sheet.
The OP has neither appeared and nor filed his written version and was set ex-parte on 07.01.2017. The OP has also not filed any document in this Forum to defend himself. Hence the case was heard in ex-parte.
OBSERVATION
We have already perused the complaint and written version filed by the complainant and the OP as well as the documents filed by the complainant. After scrutinizing the entire case record we have reached at the findings that the OP has not got his own office within the local jurisdiction of Bhadrak District. The OP belongs to Bhadrak District. According to the settled principle of law the OP most belongs to the local jurisdiction of the District where the D.C.D.R.F is situated. We do not find any merit to adjudicate this case. This complaint is barred by local jurisdiction. In this case the OP is belonging to New Delhi which is not coming under the local jurisdiction of D.C.D.R.F Bhadrak. Hence it is ordered;
ORDER
The complaint be and the same is dismissed on contest ex-parte against OP barred by the jurisdiction.
This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this day of 3rd June, 2019 under my hand and seal of the Forum.
