Orissa

Rayagada

CC/2/2021

Jagadish Ch Panda - Complainant(s)

Versus

Appario Tetail Pvt Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Self

27 Aug 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

POST  /  DIST: Rayagada,  STATE:  ODISHA,  Pin No. 765001.

                                                      ******************

C.C.case  No.     02      / 2021.                              Date.       27   . 8. 2021

P R E S E N T .

Sri   Gopal    Krishna  Rath,                                               President.

Smt.  Padmalaya  Mishra,.                                               Member

 

Sri Jagadish  Chandra Panda,  S/O: Late Simadri Panda,  At: Raniguda Farm, Near OPDSC office, Po/Dist: Rayagada.      (Odisha). 765  001.

Cell  No. 94377-19579                                                …. Complainant.

Versus.

1.The Manager, Appario Retail Pvt. Ltd.,  Building No. 5 BGR Ware house complex, Near Shiv Sagar Hotel,  Vill: VAhuli, Bhiwandi, Thane, Bhiwandi, Maharashtra,421 302.     

2.The Manager, Dell, 703, Shikhar Complex, Shrimali Society,  Near  Mithakhali,  Six Roads, Navarangpura, Ahamedabad, Gujarat State,                                       … Opposite parties.

Counsel for the parties:                                 

For the complainant: - Self..

For the O.P No.1  :- Sri   Santosh   Kumar  Mohapatra, Advocate, Rayagada.

For the O.P. No.2:- Set exparte...

                                                          J u d g e m e n t.

          The  present disputes arises out of the complaint petition filed by the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps for non refund of  purchase  price  towards   LAPTOP which was not functioning within the warranty period. The brief facts of the case  has summarised here under

That  the complainant  had purchased  a   LAPTOP  through  on line  vide Invoice No.IN BOM7- 1275869 dt. 7.8.2020  from the O.P No.1 by paying   consideration   a sum of Rs.26,826/-. The O.Ps. have   sold  the  said set to the complainant providing  one year warranty period.The  above set   found defective  within the warranty  period i.e. Set started trouble  after  four months, automatic switch off and sudden shut down of display system, battery becoming hot and down and became totally useless and defunct. The complainant complained the matter to the  O.Ps. from time to time  over phone  but the O.Ps are turned deaf ear to his request. Inspite of repeated  approach   to the O.Ps for rectification  of the defects but the O.Ps paid deaf ear.   Now the above set is unused.  But  no  action has been taken by the O.Ps till date. Hence this complaint petition  filed by the complainant and prays the District Commission  direct the O.Ps to refund  purchase  price of the above  set and such other relief as the  District  Commission deems fit and proper  for the best interest of justice.

Upon  Notice, the O.P  No.1 (Retailer) put in their appearance and filed  written version through their learned counsel in which  they refuting allegation made against them.  The O.P No.1   taking one and another pleas in the written version   sought to dismiss the complaint as it is not maintainable  under the C.P. Act.  The facts which are not specifically admitted may be treated  as denial of the O.P No.1.  Hence the O.P No.1   prays the District  Commission to dismiss the case against  them  to meet the ends of justice.

On being noticed  the O.P No.2 (Manufacturer) neither entering in to appear before the District Commission  nor filed their  written version inspite of more than  5 adjournments has been given  to them. Complainant consequently filed his memo and prayer to set exparte of the O.P No.2.  Observing lapses of around 7 (Seven) months   for which the objectives  of the legislature of the C.P. Act going to be destroyed to the prejudice of the interest of the complainant.  Hence after hearing  from the complainant set the case  exparte against the O.P No.2. The action of the O.P No.2 are against the principles of  natural justice as envisaged  in C.P. Act. Hence the O.P. No.2 was  set exparte  as the statutory period  for filing of  written version was over to close the case with in the time frame permitted by the C.P. Act.

          We therefore constrained to  proceed to dispose of the case, on its merit  against the O.P.  No.2

          Heard  arguments from the   complainant  and learned counsel for the O.P. No.1..          We  perused the complaint petition and the document, written version      filed by   the   parties.

This District Commission   examined the entire material on record  and given  a thoughtful consideration  to the  arguments  advanced  before us by  the  parties touching the points both on the facts  as well as on  law

        FINDINGS.

                From the records it reveals that, the complainant has purchased   a   LAPTOP  through  on line  vide Invoice No.IN BOM7- 1275869 dt. 7.8.2020  from the O.P No.1 by paying   consideration   a sum of Rs.26,826/- through on line Amazon.in(copies of the  invoice is available in the file which is marked as Annexure-I). But unfortunately after delivery with in  warranty period the above  set found defective and not functioning. The complainant complained the OPs for necessary repair in turn the OPs  paid deaf  ear.  

.           From the records it is seen that, the complainant has filed Xerox copy of purchase bill which is in the file marked as Annexure-I.  The complainant had from time to time  approached the O.P No.2 (Manufacturer)  through their Toll free No. for the defective of above  set with complaints where in the O. P No.2   not heard.

The  O.P. No.1 (Retailer)  in their written version contended that the  warranty  card can  be availed by  the  complainant  in case of non working and any defect in the product  during  the warranty period from the  O.P.No.2(Manufacturer). The O.P.No.1 ‘s (Retailer)  role is only to book the order and to timely  deliver the product in question. At  the time of purchase  order it was clear to the complainant  that for any after sale defects  the manufacturer only is liable to rectify the same through its authorized service centre. The O.P.No.1 (Retailer) prays the   District Commission   the present complaint is liable to be dismissed against the O.P. No.1(Retailer). In this connection  Apex  courts  citations  are  also mentioned  in the written  version  by the O.P. No.1(Retailer).

 

            On examining the whole transactions, it is pertinent to mention here that, there is One year valid warranty for the alleged above set and the defect arose with in warranty  period  of purchase. As the OP No.2(Manufacturer)  deliberately lingering to file their written version or any other documents after lapses of above 07 months, and observing the present situation, and nothing adversary to the complainant as adduced by the OP. The District Commission  relying on the version of the complainant is of the view that, the alleged  set has inherent defect and there is vivid deficiency in service by the OPs declining to redress the grievances of his consumers i.e.  the present complainant, hence the complainant is entitled to get the price of the said set along with such substantial compensation for all such harassment having been impounded with mental agony and deprivation of the use for the same  for long time  and so also the cost of litigation. We found there is deficiency in service by the OPs and the complainant is entitled to get relief.

            On appreciation of the evidences adduce before it, the commission is inclined to allow the complaint against the O.P  No.2 (Manufacturer).

                                                            O R D E R

            In  resultant the complaint petition  is allowed  on exparte against the O.P No.2(Manufacturer) and dismissed against  O.P.No.1  (Reseller).

The O.P. No.2 (Manufacturer) is directed to  refund  price  of  LAPTOP a sum of Rs.26,826/ besides  Rs.4,000/-  damages towards mental agony  inter alia Rs.1,000/-  towards   litigation expenses.

            The O.P. No. 1(Reseller)  is  ordered to refer the matter to the O.P. No. 2(Manufacturer)   for early compliance of the above order.

            The entire directions shall be carried out with in  30 days from the  date of receipt   of this order.   Copies be served to the parties  free of cost.

Dictated and  corrected by me.   

Pronounced in the open forum on          27 ^th.      day of    August,   2021.

 MEMBER                                                      PRESIDENT