Orissa

Cuttak

CC/22/2017

Swagat Kumar Pati - Complainant(s)

Versus

Flextronics Technologies India Private Limited - Opp.Party(s)

A K Pati

17 Feb 2018

ORDER

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

C.C No.22/2017

Swagat Kumar Pati,

At:Bhanja Lane,PO/PS:Badambadi,

Dist:Cuttack.                                                                                   … Complainant.

 

                Vrs.

 

 

1.         Flextronics technologies India Pvt. Ltd.,

Global Service,70-A,Electronic City,Sur Road,

Bangalore-560100..

 

2.         Mr. Rajat Pandey(Service Engineer),

Flextronics Technologies India Pvt. Ltd.,

Global Service,70-A,Electgronic City,

Sur Road,Bangalore-560100.

 

3.        Laxmi Mobiles and Services(13-14),103,Saheed Nagar,

Ground Floor,Bhubaneswar,Odisha.

 

4.        Channel-4(CTC),Singh Plaza, Beside Kedarson,

Dolamundai,Cuttack.

 

5.         HTC Global Services (India) Pvt. Ltd.,

Dynasty Business Park,

Lelvel-4,A Wing,Andheri,Kurla Road,Andheri East,

Mumbai-400059.… Opp. Parties.

 

Present:               Sri Dhruba Charan Barik,LL.B. President.

Sri Bichitra Nanda Tripathy, Member.

Smt. Sarmistha Nath, Member (W).

 

Date of filing:   21.02.2014

Date of Order: 17.02.2018

 

For the complainant:                Sri A.K.Pati,Adv. & Associates.

For  O.P. No.3.    :                       Mr.B.K.Mishra,Adv. & Associates.

For O.Ps1,2,4 & 5:                               None.

 

Sri Bichitra Nanda Tripathy,Member                                                     

The case is against deficiency in service on the part of O.Ps.

1. Shortly the case is that, the complainant purchased a “HTC Butterfly Silver Gray” mobile set from O.P No.3 on payment of Rs.46,800/- on 12.09.2013 vide invoice NO.LMS/R1/13/14/7350.  After using the said mobile set for about 10 months the set developed some minor problems which was rectified by O.P No.4 (the authorized service centre).  Again the said set developed some major problems after a further period of 8/10 months for which O.P No.4 was again contacted and the mobile set was handed over to O.P No.4 on 10.08.2015 vide job sheet No.BB I006-0001823 and ticket No.15 INA 330002905.  Even after regular contacts with the O.P No.4, the complainant got back his phone on 16.10.2015 i.e. after a period of more than 2 months on payment of Rs.8258/- vide receipt No.BBi006-0001823-1 towards repair charges.  Subsequently the complainant came to know that another old telephone was supplied to him instead of the one which was given for repair.  He contacted Head office and as advised he again deposited the set with O.P No.4 on 22.10.2015 vide ticket No.15 INA 430071660 and Job No.BBI0060002268 and requested for change of the said set.  The O.P No.4 was also contacted frequently for the purpose.  The complainant was again supplied with another old set without SIM-Tray. This may be noted that the Sim-tray is a vital part of the mobile set without which the set does not function.  He brought these matters again to the notice of O.P No.4 and also intimated Head Office and requested them to supply him a new set. But his problem was not solved.  A legal notice was also served on the O.Ps but it yielded no result.  Finding no other way, the complainant has filed the case with this Hon’ble Forum.  He has prayed to direct the O.Ps to pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards the loss sustained by the complainant, a further sum of Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony and also to pay the cost of litigation.
2. O.P No.1 & 2 refused to receive the notice as served by this Hon’ble Forum.  O.P No.1 & 2 did not attend the court. O.P No.4 & 5 neither attended the court nor submitted any written version.
3. O.P No.3 vide his written version dt.27.04.2017 has intimated that O.P No.3 is a mobile dealer and has nothing to do with the defects with the product or has nothing to say regarding the deficiency in service as provided by the service centre.
4. We have gone through the case records in details and heard the advocates of complainant and O.P No.3 at length.  O.P No.1,2,4 & 5 neither attended the hearing nor submitted any written version.  Thus we conclude that O.P Nos.1,2,4 & 5 have nothing to say further in their defense and we are constrained to accept the uncontroverted statement of the complainant.  The complainant had purchased a mobile set from O.P No.3 on 12.09.2013 for a price of Rs.46,800/-.  The said set was repaired with O.P No.4.  The said set was again developed some problems for which it was given to O.PNo.4 for repair.  A sum of Rs.8258.97p was also paid towards repair charges.   The said telephone was exchanged and another phone was given to the complainant.   The complainant intimated such facts to the notice of head office.  Again another set was given without Sim-tray. Vide E.Mail the O.P No.1 has admitted that the telephone was under repair and thus likely to be delivered soon.  Vide E.Mail dt. 15^th March, O.P No.1 has also admitted that the mobile was delivered without Sim-Tray. (Copy of E.Mail as submitted bycm ).

In spite of several requests made by the complainant the mobile set was not repaired properly though the repair charges were paid for the purpose.The said set was also not replaced by the O.Ps in spite of the fact that the Sim-tray was not available with the set which was delivered to the complainant after repair.

Basing on the facts and circumstances as stated above, we have observed that the O.Ps are deficient in service.

ORDER

The case is allowed edparte against O.Ps No.1,4 & 5.O.ps No.1,4, & 5 shall refund a sum of Rs.30,000/-(Rupees thirty thousand) only towards cost of telephone.Since the telephone was in use for about 2 years, the cost of said telephone is calculated at Rs.30,000/-.O.Ps 1,4 & 5 will also pay a sum fo Rs.30,000/- as compensation towards mental agony and a further sum of Rs.5000/- towards cost f litigation.Thus O.ps 1,4 & 5 shall pay a sum of Rs.65,000/-(Rupees sixty five thousand) only to the complainant in total.Case against O.P No.2 is dismissed since he is an employee of O.P No.1 and has dealt with the matter on official capacity.Case against O.P No.3 is also dismissed since he is the retailer of mobile sets and has nothing to do with the repair of the said phone.

All the above noted payments shall be made to the complainant within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the order, failing which the complainant is at liberty to take further course of action with this Hon’ble Forum as per C.P.Act,1986.

Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by the Hon’ble Member in the Open Court on this the 17^th  day of February,2018  under the seal and signature of this Forum.

              (Sri B.N.Tripathy )

                                                                                                                    Member.

 

                                                                                                                                               

                                                                                                             (  Sri D.C.Barik )

                                                                                                                   President.

 

 

                                                                                                            (Smt. Sarmistha Nath) 

                                                                                                      Member(W).