Date of filing :-08/01/2014.
Date of Order:-01/09/2015.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FOURM (COURT)
B A R G A R H.
Consumer Complaint No. 01 of 2014
Nrusingha Majhi, S/o Bhuban Majhi, aged about 25(twenty five) years, Occupation- Private Service, R/o Khandahata, Po. Khandahata, Ps/Tahasil/Dist. Bargarh.
..... ..... ..... Complainant.
- V e r s u s -
Bikash Kumar Sukla, Proprietor of Sukla Computer, Lap-top and Mobile, Near Saukhin Rangamancha, Govt. Bus Stand, Main Road, Bargarh, Po/Ps/Tahasil/Dist. Bargarh.
..... ..... ..... Opposite Party.
Counsel for the Parties:-
For the Complainant:- Sri S.C.Sarangi, Advocate with others Advocates.
For the Opposite Party:- Ex-parte.
-: P R E S E N T :-
Mrs Anjali Behera ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... Member (w), I/C President.
Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... M e m b e r.
Dt. 01/09/2015. -: J U D G E M E N T :-
Presented by Smt. A.Behera, Member(w), I/C President .
Facts in a nutshell :-
Complainant namely Nrusingha Majhi, S/o. Bhubana Majhi aged about 25(twenty five) year, Occupation- Private Service, Resident of Khandahata, Po. Khandahata, Ps/Tahasil/Dist- Bargarh files complaint against the designated Opposite Party alleging deficiency of service and harassment, on occasion of purchase of a Samsung Mobile Phone model SAMSUNG FIVE THREE 02 on Dt.17/11/2012.
On Dt.04/05/2013 the mobile got defunct and when the Complainant dragged attention of the seller the Opposite Party took Rs.1950/-(Rupees one thousand nine hundred fifty)only and the hand set on Dt.04/05/2013 for repair of the said mobile and not returned the same till filing of the case and hence this case.
Complainant filed and relies an the following documents to establish his case.
Original Money receipt of purchase.
Original receipt for money taken for repair charges on Dt.04/05/2013.
and prays for a new mobile set and the repair changes paid that is Rs.1950/-( Rupees one thousand nine hundred fifty)only and Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand)only for harassment.
Complainant got allowed being fit for adjudication as per provisions of the CP Act.1986.
Opposite Party duly noticed. SR back on Dt.24/06/2014 but does not appears non files their version till Dt.01/12/2014 on Dt.16/12/2014 Opposite Party set ex-parte and date fixed for ex-parte hearing. However Complainant also for unknown reason refrains himself from ex-parte hearing till Dt.06/07/2015 and Forum decides to take the Complaint an merit as the Complainants hazira seen to be there on each date till 06/07/2015 and onward till Dt.12/08/2015. Only two documents are there filed with the case. The original money receipt for purchase of the mobile and another money receipt of the alleged repair during warranty period.
The purchase of the mobile set is established from the original money receipt filed.
But in absence of the Complainant on hearing from the money receipt relating to repair it is not established that this repair charges are for the same Mobile set as no clue about which Mobile is to be repaired for the charges is taken is not clear from the receipt and no any other document is there to prove the contention of the Complainant.
What restrained this Complainant from participation in the hearing is not known but one assumption can be that his case has been addressed by the Opposite Party but at the same time by filing hazira till last date Complaint proves contrary hence contention and main allegation stays. On the whole the casual and do not care attitude of the Opposite Party also proved as even though got the notice from a judicial establishment decided not to respond by any medium.
Through there is no any document regarding deposit of mobile phone with Opposite Parties filed by documents, in absence of Opposite Parties or any other document in contradiction to this the allegation of Complainant sustains on the footage that he is keeping the Complaint alive through filing haziras though absent on call.
Under the facts and circumstances Forum orders the following.
- O R D E R -
The Opposite Party is directed to give a new same model Mobile Phone to the Complainant or any other Mobile Phone of the same brand same price if the old model is not available and a litigation cost of Rs.1,000/-(Rupees one thousand)only within one month of this Order, failing which, prosecution as per law follows and the award amount carries 12% per annum interest till actual payment.
Complaint allowed and disposed off accordingly.
Typed to my dictation
and corrected by me.
(Smt.Anjali Behera)
M e m b e r(w),
I/C President. I agree,
( Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash )
M e m b e r
