Orissa

Cuttak

CC/117/2020

Durgadatta Swain - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Manager,Reliance Retail Limited - Opp.Party(s)

A K Samal

20 Oct 2022

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

                                   C.C.No.117/2020

 

Durgadatta Swain,

S/O:Jagannath Swain,

Res. At:Qr. No.R/4,Jobra Municipality Colony,

Near Jobra Field,P.O:Colele Square,

Town/Distg:Cuttaci,PIN-753003,Odisha.                               ... Complainant.

 

                                                Vrs.

1.        Reliance Retail Limited,

Cuttack Branch Office,Plot NO.967,At/PO:Colele Square,

Town/Dist:Cuttack,Odisha,Pin-75300,represented by

Its Branch Manager.

 

2.        Managing Director,

Reliance Retail Limited,Regd. Office:3^rd Floor,Court House,

Lokmanya Tilak Marg,Dhobitalao,

Mumbai-400002,Maharastra,India.

 

3.        Oppo Mobile India Private Limited,

Plot No.01,Sector Ecotech-VII,

Greater Noida,Uttar Pradesh,

Pin-201306,India represented by

Its Managing Director.                                                                   ... Opp. Parties.

 

 

Present:               Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                                Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:    30.12.2021

Date of Order:   20.10.2022

 

For the complainant:          Mr. A.K.Samal,Advocate.

For the O.Ps :                        None.

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President                                           

            Case of the complainant as made out from the complaint petition in short is that he had purchased a OnePlus 7T Pro mobile phone from the O.P No.1 on 16.3.20  for a consideration of Rs.53,999/-.  He also had paid a sum of Rs.5499/- towards additional coverage of the said mobile phone.  But from the third day of such purchase, the complainant found that the said mobile phone was “hanged”, giving loud sound and was automatically being switched off.  The complainant had suffered inconvenience during the Covid-19 pandemic situation as he could not contact anyone due to the defective mobile set.  When he approached O.P No.1 as regards to the same, he was advised to go to the service centre at Sahidnagar, Bhubaneswar since because there was no service centre available at Cuttack for the said mobile phone set.  When the complainant went to the said service centre at Sahidnagar, Bhubaneswar, there after examination of the said mobile phone, the service centre authorities informed the complainant that the mother board of the said mobile phone has been damaged which needs to be replaced.  He had to contact the customer care service through mail and had expressed about the problem through his cousin Jayashree Jena but inspite of several exchange of mails nothing fruitful yielded for which the complainant ultimately had to approach this Commission by filing his complaint petition wherein he has prayed to direct the O.Ps for refunding him the total amount for the mobile phone as paid by him to the tune of Rs.59,498/- alongwith interest thereon @ 12% per annum.  He has further prayed for a compensation of Rs.40,502/- from the O.Ps towards his mental agony and harassment  as suffered and for any other reliefs as deemed fit and proper.

            The complainant has filed several copies of documents in order to prove his case.  He has also filed his evidence on affidavit wherein he has reiterated the averments of his complaint petition.

2.         Having not contested this case, the O.Ps are set exparte vide order dt.25.7.2022.

3.         The points for determination in this case are as follows:

i.          Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable ?

            ii.         Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps ?

            iii.        Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed ?

            From the unchallenged averments of the complaint petition together with the supportive documents as available in the case record, it is noticed that infact the complainant had purchased the mobile phone OnePlus 7T Pro mobile phone from the O.P No.1 for a cost of Rs.53,999/- on 16.3.20 and had further paid a sum of Rs.5499/- to O.P no.1.  As per the documents as available, it is noticed that the said mobile phone had developed certain defects which were not attended to by the O.Ps for which the complainant had filed this case.  Thus, the O.Ps are definitely found to be deficient in their service towards the customer/complainant of this case, the case of the complainant is ofcourse maintainable.  He is infact eligible for the reliefs as claimed by him.  Hence it is so ordered;

                                                            ORDER

            The case is allowed exparte against all the O.Ps who are found to be jointly and severally liable here in this case.  The O.Ps are directed to pay Rs.59,498/- to the complainant alongwith interest thereon @ 9% per annum effective from 16.3.2020 till the amount is quantified.  The O.Ps are also directed to pay Rs.20,000/- to the complainant as compensation towards mental agony and harassment as well as a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards litigation cost within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 20^th day of   October,2022 under the seal and signature of this Commission.           

                                                                                                                                Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                                                            President

                       

                                                                                                                                                           Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                                                          Member