Orissa

Rayagada

CC/121/2017

MD. Abdul Firoz - Complainant(s)

Versus

Cell Point India Pvt., - Opp.Party(s)

Self

14 May 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA,

STATE:  ODISHA.

C.C. Case  No. 121 / 2017.                                Date.     14    .     5  . 2018

P R E S E N T .

Dr. Aswini  Kumar Mohapatra,                          President.

Sri  GadadharaSahu,                                             Member.

Smt. Padmalaya  Mishra,                                     Member.

 

Sri Md. Abdul Firoz, S/O: Md. A.Bukhari,  Near Rama talkies,     Po/ Dist:Rayagada  (Odisha)                        8093568890.          …. Complainant.

Versus.

1.The   Manager, Cell Point, Vizianagaram,  State: Andhrapradesh, 535 001.

2. The Manager, Apps Daily Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Previous onward mobility solution Pvt. Ltd., C wing, 6^th. Floor,  Oberoi Garden Estates,  Chandivali  Farm road, Andheri East, Mumbai, 400  072.

3.The Manager, Malati Cell Shoppee, Rayagada.                              .…..Opp.Parties

Counsel for the parties:                         

For the complainant: - Self.

For the O.P No.1   :- Sri B.V.Apparao, Advocate, Visakhapatnam.

For the O.P. No.2 & 3:- Set exparte.

JUDGMENT

The  curx of the case is that  the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.P  No.2  for  non arrangements to replace the Oppo mobile set  interalia non payment of  insured amount   for which  the complainant  sought for redressal of the grievances raised by the complainant. The brief facts of the case  has summarised here under.

On being  noticed  the O.P. No.1  filed written version  through their  learned counsel  and submitted  that   the complainant  has purchased an OPPO mobile on Dt. 16.8.2016 vide its  IMEI No. 62156034043056  at Vizianagaram branch and the other complaint  that the complainant  was insured  the same at 2^nd. O.P.  are not known to this Ist. O.P. and that this O.P. is no way  concerned  with the 2^nd. O.P.  as such the 1^st. O.P.  is not at all liable or responsible.  The O.P. No.1  submits that there is  no   territorial jurisdiction to the complainant for filing  the above  complaint against the O.P. No.1  before this Hon’ble Forum, at Rayagada. The O.P. No.1  prays the forum be pleased to dismiss the above complaint against the  O.P. No.1  for the best interest of justice.

 

On being noticed  the O.Ps 2 & 3  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 8  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 2 & 3 . The action of the O.Ps 2 & 3  are against the principles of  natural justice as envisaged  under section  13(2) (b)(ii) of the Act. Hence the O.Ps 2 & 3  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 and O.P. No.1  We perused the complaint petition and the document filed by the complainant and O.P. No.1.

         FINDINGS.

From the records it reveals that, there is no dispute that the  complainant had purchased an Oppo mobile   set  bearing  IMEI No. 862156034043056, 862156034043049 from the O.P.  No.1   by paying a sum of Rs. 12,300/-  with Sales Invoice     No. U/VZM/-1/4457 dt. 16.08.2016 with  one year warranty (Copies of the  bill is in the file marked as Annexure-I).  The same was insured before the O.P.No.2 after payment of insurance amount and received a receipt from the O.P. No.2 and the search card  activated the number after scratching the card on Dt.  9.9.2016.  Since then the above said mobile was insured under  the O.P. No.2. The above said mobile was not functioning on Dt. 14.7.2017 and the same was reported  before the O.P. No.2  and the O.P. No.2 with an assurance  took  that the mobile  from the complainant and made believing that  he will  make repairing work of the above said  mobile and also promised that if the mobile  was not repairable  then he will pay the insured amount to the  complainant.    Accordingly the complainant handed over  the  above mobile set  along  with insured   document, the O.P. No.2  kept the same  from  16.7.2017 to 2.9.2017 and return the mobile stating  that the mobile phone was dead and it will  not  function  further, but the O.P. No.2 silent with regard to the insured amount. The complainant further approached the O.P No.2  to make necessary arrangements to replace the above said mobile set and payment of  insured amount    which he spent but for no use.  In turn the OP No.2  paid deaf ear. 

                From the records it is seen that, the complainant has filed Xerox copy of purchase bill which is marked as Annexure-I.  Hence it is abundantly clear that, the complainant had purchased the above set from the O.P.  The complainant also approached the O.P. No.2  but no fruitful result received till date.

                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 some month of use. As the OPs deliberately lingering to file their written version or any other documents after lapses of above 1(One) year, 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 OP No.2  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 or a new same set instead of the defective one 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  in part  on exparte against the O.PS.

                The O.P  No.  2   directed to return back the defective product from the complainant  by paying the price of the  above mobile set  a sum of Rs. 12,300/-.     There is no order as to cost and compensation.

                The O.P. No.1 & 3 are directed 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 30 days from the  date of receipt   of this order.

Service the copies of the order to the parties free of cost.

Dictated and corrected by me

Pronounced on this                 14 th.  day of   May, 2018.

 

 

MEMBER                                                                              MEMBER                                                    PRESIDENT