Orissa

Rayagada

CC/102/2018

D. Ramasankar Rao - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bankeswari Maa Cell Point - Opp.Party(s)

Self

09 Jan 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA,

STATE:  ODISHA.

C.C. Case  No. 102 / 2018.                             Date.     9  .    01   . 2019.

P R E S E N T .

Dr. Aswini  Kumar Mohapatra,                                      President

Sri GadadharaSahu,                                                          Member.

Smt.PadmalayaMishra,.                                                  Member

 

Sri D.Ram Sankar Rao, C/O: Tiles House, Floor No. 1,  Po:Gunupur,  Dist: Rayagada , 765 022  (Odisha). Cell No. 80934-56662/ 9861456662.                  …. Complainant.

Versus.

1.The  Manager, Bankeswari Maa cell Point, Prop:- Sunil Susnamudi, Near Chinari Medicos,Sation Road, Rayagada, cell No. 9438223409.

2.The Manager, Amazon.in, Staunch tail Service LLP, A-43, Ground Floor, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, Main Mathura Road, Badarppur, South Delhi-110044.

3.The Manager, Ivoomi Inovation Pvt. Ltd., Add:D-11/55, Sector-7,Rohini,Delhi-110085.                                                                … Opposite parties.

For the Complainant:- Sri M.R.Rath, Advocate, Rayagada.

For the O.Ps:- Set exparte.

JUDGEMENT

            The  factual matrix of the case is that  the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps    for non refund of price towards      Ivoomi me 5 iv 505 (Black)- B075FTZZ45    mobile set   a sum of Rs.4,499/-   to the complainant towards defective during warranty period for which  the complainant  sought for redressal of the grievances raised by the complainant.

That the  complainant  had purchased Ivoomi me 5 iv 505 (Black)- B075FTZZ45     mobile set from the O.P. No. 2 by paying cash payment of Rs.4,499/- having  one year warranty  bearing  tax invoice No. DLSDEA-144259771-1718 on   Dt.16.10.2017. The complainant booked the same through the O.P. No.2 on Dt. 16.10.2017 vide order No.406-4457545-8321142. The booking company  had delivered the same during the month of October, 2017  in the residential address of the complainant.   The above set  became  defunct  on Dt.  29.12.2017 with a  following  defects i.e. the hands set restarts it self  and black lines appears on the touch screen, hangs itself.    So the complainant had given the same to the Service centre i.e O.P. No.1  for repair and replacement of the same.  But till date the O.P.No.1 has not handed over the same  to the complainant. On  asking the O.P. No.1 has replied he has sent the same to the O.P.No.2  but  till date the O.P No.1 has not received  the same from the O.P. No.2(Seller). Hence this case before the forum  for redressal of  his grievance  and to  direct the O.Ps to     pay back the amount   of Rs. 4,499/-  towards purchase price of the set  and further direct the  OPs to pay  compensation  and also cost of  litigation to the complainant  & such other  relief as the  forum deems fit and proper  for  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 4(four) 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 are against the principles of  natural justice as envisaged  under section  13(2) (b)(ii) of the Act. Hence the O.Ps.  were 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.

                The complainant has been heard at length & perused the records.

.               From the records it reveals that, the complainant has purchased a Ivoomi me 5 iv 505 (Black)- B075FTZZ45    mobile set from the O.P. No.1 by paying cash payment of Rs. 4,999/- having  one year warranty  bearing  tax invoice No. DLSDEA-144259771-1718 on   Dt.16.10.2017 (copies of the  tax invoice is in the file which is marked as Annexure-I). But unfortunately within   the warranty period  the above  set found defective and not functioning  properly. The complainant complained the OPs  service centre situated at Rayagada(Odisha) for necessary repair and handed over the  above  set on Dt. 29.12.2017 for  remove the defects(copies of the  service centre  receipt is in the file  which is marked as  Annexure-2).  

                It is admitted position of law that when   a  goods sold  by the  manufacturer has under gone  servicing   and even such  servicing  the same defects  persist  it   is deemed  to be a  manufacturing defect.   Hence the complainant is entitled to thoroughly  check up  of the mobile set   and   to  remove   the defects  of   the above set  with fresh warrantee .

It is held and reported  in  CPJ 2005 (2) page No.781 the Hon’ble State  Commission , Chandigarh observed  the dealer is the person who in the market comes in direct contact with the consumer and he assures about the quality   of goods sold and in case  the consumer  had problem with the mobile handset, the dealer was under an obligation to refer the matter  to the manufacturer for necessary  relief, which  in the  instant case was done.

Coming to the merits of the case the complainant had purchased the Mobile set  from the O.P No. 2   on payment of consideration  an amount of Rs. 4,499/- on Dt. 16.10.2017 (copies of the  retail  invoice) marked as Annexure-I.  On perusal of the record we observed  the complainant  after using  some months for rectification of defects on Dt. 29.12.2017  handed over the same to the O.P. No.1 (service centre) but till  date the  complainant had  not received the same  from the O.Ps(copies of the  service centre receipt is in the file which is marked as Annexure-2_.  So  the complainant  has purchased another mobile set from the market.

On perusal of the record we observed that  the complainant made several complaints with the O.Ps pointing out the defects  which goes on to show that  right from  the very beginning  the above set was not performing  well and continued  repeatedly to develop defects  resulting  in  non-performance which was intimated by the complainant.   Further we observed that  on repeated complaints made  by the complainant to the O.Ps neither the defects have been removed nor replaced  with a new  set. We observed  inspite of  required  services made  with in the  warranty  period  the above set could not be rectified.  We  hold   at this stage if the above set required frequent servicing then it can be presumed that it has a manufacturing defect. If a defective set  is supplied a consumer he  is entitled to get refund of the price of the  set or to replaced  with a new set and also the consumer concerned is entitled  and has a right to claim compensation and cost to meet the mental agony. In the instant case as it appears that the  above  set which was purchased by the complainant which had developed  defects and the O.Ps were unable to restore its normal functioning during the warranty period.

             It appears that the complainant invested a substantial amount and purchased the above  set with an expectation to have the effective benefit of use of the mobile set. In this case the complainant was deprived of getting beneficial use   of the set and deprived of using the above set for such a long time and the defects were not removed by the O.Ps who could know the defects from time to time from the complainant. In the instant case the O.P No.2 & 3  is  liable.  

On appreciation of the evidences adduce before it, the forum is inclined to allow the complaint against the OPs.

 Hence  to  meet the  ends of justice, the following order is passed.    

                                                O R D E R

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

 The O.P  No. 3(Manufacturer)   is   ordered  to  refund  purchase  price of the Ivoomi me 5 iv 505 (Black)- B075FTZZ45     mobile set a sum of Rs. 4,499/- to the complainant.  The O.P No.2 & 3  are  further ordered to pay Rs.1,000/-  towards compensation  for  mental agony, besides  Rs.500/- towards  cost.

The O.P No. 3   is  ordered to comply the above directions within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order .

The O.P.No.1   and 2 are  directed to refer the matter  to the O.P No. 3 for early compliance of the above order.

Serve  the copies of the order to the parties as per rule free of cost.

Dictated and  corrected by me.

                Pronounced in the open forum on             9^th. day of    January, 2019.

 

 

MEMBER                                                                                 MEMBER                                                 PRESIDENT