DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: NABARANGPUR: ODISHA
Consumer Complaint no. 169 / 2016
Present: MR LAXMI NARAYAN PADHI, HON’BLE PRESIDENT.
MRS MEENAKHI PADHI, HON’BLE MEMBER.
Date of Institution: 11.07.2016 Date of decision: 27.09.2016
Gupta Prasad Mishra, 25 yrs, S/o Sri Binayak Mishra, C/o Sri
Manohar Tripathy, At-Tumberla, po/ps/dist- Nabarangpur. …Complainant.
Versus
C.E.O., Amazon World, At- Gateway-8th floor, 26/1, Dr
Rajkumar Road, Malleswaram (W), Bangalore, Karnataka-560055. …Opp parties
For the complainant : Self.
For the OP : Mr S.Mishra, Advocate.
MR LAXMI NARAYAN PADHI, PRESIDENT… The fact of case is that, the complainant procured a Glass
screen guard through online bearing its Order No. 403-9835932-3885105, on dt.18.05.2016 from the OP for Rs.499/- and the OP delivered the parcel on dt.01.06.2016 vide invoice no.MH-BOM3-132757941-8273. During the time of delivery of parcel the complainant shifted to Nabarangpur hence he could not able to open the parcel for some days but he open the same on dt.30.06.2016 and tried to fix the same to his mobile but he found some scratches on the face of the glass guard and it does not fix to his mobile due to insufficient gum. Hence the complainant approached the OP through their toll free bearing number 180030009009 and requested to replace the same on dt.8.7.2016 at 10.39 a.m. but for no action. The complainant resides at village area and the same screen guard is not available in local market, hence the complainant always in afraid of scratches on his mobile. So he contends that, prior to order a proper size glass guard for his mobile, the OP provided a duplicate quality guard and despite persuasions, the OP neither replaced the screen guard nor pays its price to him, so there is deficiency in service by the OP for which the complainant suffered mental agony and financial losses. Hence he prayed to allow the price of the glass guard and a sum of Rs.20,000/- as compensation and cost for such malfeasance action of OP.
2. The counsel for OP though appeared but failed to file his counter in the case despite times given on dt.11.8.16, 23.8.16, 3.9.16, 15.9.16, 24.9.16 & 27.9.16 within its admission. Hence the OP set ex parte as per provisions envisaged in C.P.Act.1986. The complainant has filed cash invoice of the alleged guard, glass guard in question etc. The complainant & counsel for OP has been minutely heard the case and perused the record.
3. The consumer protection act is a socio economic beneficial law, intended for speedy delivery of justice to the aggrieved and needy consumers and every complaint is supposed to be disposed off within a timeframe in consonance with the objects of the benevolent legislature, but inordinate delay in procurement of evidences and counter by the parties have emerged for reaching delirium to achievement of such objects.
4. From the above submissions, it reveals that the complainant has procured the glass guard in question on dt.01.06.2016 and the same found defect after opening the wrapper cover within a reasonable time of less than one month. It is seen that, the complainant time and again approached the OP for replace of the product, but the OP neither replaced the guard with a new one nor pays the price of it despite of several persuasions by complainant. Considering the evidences, submissions by the complainant, we are of the view that, the alleged glass guard has inherent defect and the OP failed to render satisfactory service to the complainant violating sales of contract. Thus the complainant suffered mental agony with the defective product, and also inflicted financial losses and valuable times due to the negligence and unfair practices of OP hence he prayed for compensation.
5. From the above discussions and perusing the submissions filed by the complainant, we have carefully verified the alleged product and found defect. It is further noticed that, the OP despite receiving notice of this forum is failed to take any initiations to settle the matter of complainant and there is nothing to reject the contentions of complainant without filing submission, counter and evidences by the OP, hence we feel that the action of OP is illegal, highhanded and unfair which amounts to deficiency in service and hence the OP found guilty under the C.P.Act 1986, hence the complainant is lawfully entitled for compensatory relief. As thus the complaint is allowed against the OP with costs.
O R D E R
i. The opposite party supra is hereby directed to pay the price of the product Rs.499/- (Rupees four hundred & Ninety nine) inter alia, to pay Rs.10,000/-(Ten thousand) as compensation and a sum of Rs.5000/-(Five thousand) towards the cost of litigation to the complainant.
ii. All the above directions shall be complied with in 30 days of this order, failing which, the total sum will bear 12% interest per annum till its realization. Order pronounced on this the 27th day of Sept' 2016.
MEMBER PRESIDENT, DCDRF,
NABARANGPUR.
Date of Preparation:
Date of dispatch :
Date of received by
the A/A for Ops / Complainant :
Initial of the dispatcher. Memo No_______________ Dtd…………………………
Copy to the parties concerned.
PRESIDENT, DCDRF,
NABARANGPUR.
