Orissa

Rayagada

CC/394/2015

Sri Chandan Panda - Complainant(s)

Versus

Flip Kart Com - Opp.Party(s)

Self

31 May 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA

 

                                                 C.C. Case  No.394/ 2015.

P R E S E N T .

Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash, LL.B,                             President.

Smt. Ch.  Nirmala Kumari Raju, LLB,                    Member

Sri Chandana Panda, aged about 33 years, Son of Biswanath Panda,At/Po Kolnara, Ps: Chandili, Dist. Rayagada.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        ………Complainant

                                                            Vrs.

1. Flip Kart.Com,WS Retail Services Pvt. Ltd.,,Warehouse Address: 42/1 & 43.Kacherakanahallil Village, Jadigenahalli Hobli, Hoskote Taluk, Bangalore,Karnataka,India-560067.
2. Xiaomi Service Centre, TVS Electronics Ltd., Shop No.106 & 107,1^st Floor, No.18,Krishna Summit, Cuter Ring Road, Above Khajana Jewelers,Marathalli,Bangalaore-560037.
3. Xiaomi Incl, Xiaomi India,C/o Ikeva Business Center,8^th Floor, Umiya, Business Bay Tower-1,Cessna Business park, Kadubeesanahalli, Marathalli-Sarjapur Outer Ring Road,Bangalore,560103,India.

                                                                                                            ………...Opp.Parties

Counsel for the parties:

For the complainant: In Person

For the O.Ps:  Set Exparte

 

                                                                 JUDGMENT

                        The facts of the complaint  in brief is that,  the complainant has ordered  for purchase of  a   Mobile  Redmi Note-4G from O.p. No.1 after watching the demonstration of the mobile set on  Flip Kart.Com(Online Shopping) manufactured and marketed by O.p No.2 with a  consideration of Rs.9,999/- on 13.01.2015  with one year warranty but  the  mobile set given various problems for which  the complainant  given the set  to the service  centre  for more than three times  but the O.p 2 without giving proper service  returned the set  .At last the complainant   finding no other option approached this forum for relief  and prayed  to direct the O.Ps  to   refund the  cost of the mobile  i.e. Rs.9,999/- with compensation of Rs.5000/- .Hence, this complaint.

                       

                        On being noticed, neither the O.ps appeared nor filed any written version and as  the O.ps failed to appear before this forum despite service of notice, the proceeding was set exparte against them.

                        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 replace  the mobile set   and extend the warranty for another six months or  else the O.ps are liable to  refund the cost of the mobile set  i.e. Rs.9,999/-   and pay  compensation of Rs.3,000/-  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 11^th day of January,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. Xerox copy of  Retail Invoice.
2. Xerox copy of job sheet

 

By the Opp.Party: Nil                                                                          President