Orissa

Rayagada

CC/121/2018

Asisha Kumar Patnaik - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bala Jayaram - Opp.Party(s)

Self

11 Feb 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA,

STATE:  ODISHA.

C.C. Case  No.        121        / 2018.                            Date.    23   . 3 . 2019.

P R E S E N T .

Dr. Aswini  Kumar Mohapatra,                   President

Sri  Gadadhara  Sahu,                                                  Member.

Smt. Padmalaya  Mishra,.                                           Member

 

                                               

            Sri Asisha  Kumr Patnaik,  S/O: Aditya Kumr Patnaik, At:Pitala Street, Po/Dist: Rayagada , 765 0001  (Odisha).

                                                                                                …. Complainant.

            Versus.

        1.Sri Bala Jayaram, Co-operative colony, Ist. Lane, Rayagada

            2. The Manager, Green mobiles, Anjaneya Infrastructure Project, No.38       & 39, Soukya Road, Kacherakanahalli,.  Hoskote Taluka, Bangalore Rural      District,Bangalore, Karnataka.                           …. Opposite parties.

Counsel for the parties:                                 

For the complainant: - Sri L.M.Patnaik, Advocate, Rayagada.

For the O.Ps  :- 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  price  towards   mobile set which was not functioning within the warranty period. The brief facts of the case  has summarised here under.  

That  the complainant had purchased  a MI Max 2  Black 32 GB  bearing from the O.P No. 2 through O.P. No.1  on Dt.20.09.2017   on  payment  of amount a sum of Rs.12,999/- vide  Invoice No. BLR5-382910. 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 in short period and the above set is not working condition. The complainant feel there is manufacturing defect in the set.   The complainant complained the matter to the  Service centre.    Inspite of repeated  contact the service centre refused to rectify or replace the same.   Now the above set is unused. The defects are persisted in the above set  are the above set has gone out of order as its touch screen was not working properly,  the battery of the set became hot, and automatically switched off  also output speaker problem, inter alia camera.    But  no  action has been taken by the O.Ps till date. Hence this case. The complainant prays the forum direct  the O.Ps to  refund the  price of the above mobile set and  such other  relief as the  forum deems fit and proper in the interest of justice.

                On being noticed  the O.Ps neither entering in to appear before the forum 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.Ps.  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  the  counsel for the complainant set the case  exparte against the O.Ps. The action of the O.Ps is against the principles of  natural justice as envisaged  under section  13(2) (b)(ii) of the Act. Hence the O.Ps. 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. 

          Heard from the complainant.   We perused the complaint petition and the document filed by the complainant.

         FINDINGS.

                From the records it reveals that, the complainant has purchased a  MI Max 2  Black 32 GB  bearing from the O.P No. 2 through O.P. No.1  on Dt.20.09.2017   on  payment  of amount a sum of Rs.12,999/- vide  Invoice No. BLR5-382910. But unfortunately after using the same 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.  Hence it is abundantly clear that, the complainant has repeatedly approached the OPs  for the defective of above  set with complaints where in the OPs  not heard.

                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 OPs 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 forum 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 forum is inclined to allow the complaint against the Ops.

                                                                                O R D E R

                In  resultant the complaint petition  stands allowed  on exparte against the O.Ps.

The O.P. No.2 (Manufacturer) is directed to return back the defective product from the complainant  inter alia  to refund  price  of  MI Max 2  Black 32 GB a sum of Rs.12,999/- besides  to pay Rs.1,000/-  towards  litigation expenses.

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

            The entire directions shall be carried out with in 45 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      23^th.     day of    March, 2019.

 

MEMBER                                                                                 MEMBER                                                 PRESIDENT