Orissa

Rayagada

CC/127/2016

Mr. Sidhesh Mishra - Complainant(s)

Versus

Cloudtall India Pvt. LTD., - Opp.Party(s)

Self

07 Sep 2016

ORDER

            DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA

                                                  C.C. Case  No.127/ 2016.

P R E S E N T .

Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash, LL.B,                             President.

Sri Gadadhara Sahu, B.Sc.                                    Member

                  Mr.Sidhesh Mishra, Brahmin Street, Gunupur, Dist. Rayagada, Odisha-765001.                                                                                                                           Versus                                                 ………Complainant

1. Cloudtail India Pvt. Ltd.,Unit No.1,Khewat/Khata No.373/400,Mustatil No.31,Village/Tahsil: Taoru,Dist.Mewat,122105,On Bilaspur-Taura Road, Haryana,122105, India.
2. Cloudtail  India Pvt. Ltd.,S-405,Ground Floor,Greater Kailash-II,New Delhi-110048.

                                                                                                      ……...Opp.Parties

Counsel for the parties:

For the complainant: In Person

For the O.Ps: Sri  P.C.Das, Advocate, Rayagada.

                                                            JUDGMENT

                        The facts of the complaint  in brief is that,  the complainant has purchased  one Yu Yuphoria mobile set  from O.p. No.1 with a  consideration of Rs.7,999/- on 20.08.2015 vide Invoice No.DCDqzj39R with one year warranty    but  immediately after  its purchase the  mobile set  was  found defective  and     for which  the complainant informed to the O.p. No.1      but the O.Ps failed to replace the mobile set    and hence finding no other option  the complainant  approach this forum and prayed to direct the O.ps  to    refund the cost of the mobile set  and  claim compensation for mental agony   and cost of  litigation  and such other relief as the forum deem fit and proper .Hence, this complaint.

                           On being noticed, neither the O.ps appeared through their advocate and  filed written version inter alia denying the petition allegations on all its material particulars. It is submitted by the O.ps that  the mobile sold by the O.p carries manufacturer’s warranty and as a  reseller involvement of O.p in the entire transaction is limited to selling the product and liability to provide after sale services do not lay upon the O.P as the O.P is neither the manufacturer of the product nor the authorized service center of the manufacturer who has the sole and prime responsibility to provide after sale services to the consumers  under warranty clause. The O.p is not the manufacturer of the product but only sells its online.  The product purchased by the complainant is manufactured by Yu Televentures Pvt. Ltd and the product sold by the O.P carries warranty provided by the manufacturer against the manufacturing defects subject to the terms and conditions determined by the manufacturer only. The role of the O.p is limited to selling the product of the manufacturer  to the complainant , since electronic devices come in a sealed box, the O.p have no control over the quality of the product nor is it possible to detect defects, if any. Thus the instant complaint is not maintainable against the O.p  as it is neither a proper nor necessary party. The O.P has no liability to replace or capability to repair the product manufactured by the manufacturer.  Even if the product is found to be defective  it can only be the liability of the manufacturer to replace or repair it and here in this case the complainant has not impleaded the manufacturer as opposite party to the complainant. The reliefs prayed for by the complainant  are wholly unreasonable and unsustainable in law and the O.p are not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant and thus the complaint against the O.p is liable to be dismissed.

                        Heard and perused the complaint petition and documents filed by the complainant and we accept the grievance of the complainant. The Complainant  argued that the O.ps have sold a defective  mobile set  to the complainant and claimed that the O.ps caused deficiency in service and deprived of the complainant of enjoyment of the mobile set  since the date of  its purchase  which caused mental agony and harassment to the complainant.

Now we have to see whether there was any negligence of the Ops  in providing  after sale service  to the complainant as alleged ?

 

We perused the documents filed by the complainant.  Since the mobile set found defective after its purchase    and   the complainant  informed the Ops regarding the defect but the  Ops   failed to remove  the defect . At this stage we hold that  if the mobile set  require  servicing since  the date of its purchase, then it can be presumed that it is defective one and if the defective mobile set  is sold to the complainant , the complainant is entitled to get refund of the price of the article or to replace a new  one or  remove the defects  and also the   complainant is entitled  and has a right to claim compensation and cost to meet his mental agony , financial loss.  In the instant case  as it is appears that the mobile set  which was purchased by the complainant 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 mobile set  with an expectation to have the effective benefit of use of the article. In this case, the complainant was deprived of getting beneficial use of the article and deprived of using the mobile set  for such  and the defecates were not removed by the O.ps who  know the defects from time to time from the complainant.

Hence, in our view the complainant has right to claim compensation to meet  his mental agony, financial loss. Hence,  it is ordered.

                                                ORDER

                        The  opposite parties  are directed to refund the cost of the mobile set  i.e. Rs.7,999/-   and pay  compensation of Rs.1,000/-  for mental agony undergone by the complainant and cost of Rs.500/- . Further, we direct the Ops to pay the aforesaid award amount  within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the O.Ps are liable to pay  interest  @  12%  p.a. on the above awarded amount till  the date of payment. Accordingly the complaint is allowed.

                        Pronounced in open forum today on this 16th day of September,2016 under the seal and signature of this forum.

                         A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements , be forwarded to the parties    free of charge.

 

 

            Member                                                                                               President

Documents relied upon:

By the complainant:

1. Copy of   Retail Invoice
2. Copy of Product details

 

 By the Opp.Party: Nil                                                                                             President