DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JHARSUGUDA
CONSUMER COMPLAINT CASE NO. 44 OF 2016
Anita Sahu @ Anita Pradhan ( 36 Years),
W/O: Rabindra Sahu, Occu: Teacher,
R/O: At-Gandhi Chowk, PS-Brajrajnagar,
Dist: Jharsuguda, Odisha...……..…………..……..………. Complainant.
Versus
- Intex Technology Pvt, Ltd,
D-18/2 Okhla Industrial Area,
Phase-II, New Delhi-110 020.
- Aditya Computer Service,
At: Purnabasti, Near Hotel Ushal Prabhat,
PO: K.M.Road,
PS/Dist: Jharsuguda, Odisha.
- Sai Communication,
Near Oriental Bank, Gandhi Chowk,
PO/PS: Brajrajnagar,
Dist: Jharsuguda, Odisha………........................... Opp. Parties.
Counsel for the Parties:-
For the Complainant Shri S. K. Patjoshi, Adv. & Associates.
For the Opp. Party No.1 & 2 None( Ex-Parte).
For the Opp. Party No. 3 Shri R.Kanda, Adv. & Associates
Date of Order: 26.10.2016
Present
1. Shri S.L. Behera, President.
2. Shri S.K.Ojha, Member.
Shri S.K. Ojha, Member: - The complainant’s case in brief is that, he had purchased one mobile handset having Brand and model Aqua Trend (White) by paying-₹9,200/- only from the O.P.No.3 on dtd. 03.01.2016. Within the period of warranty of one year from the date of purchase, the said mobile handset became dead on dtd. 30.03.2016. The complainant informed the matter to O.P.No.3 and as per advise the complainant submitted before the O.P.No.2 (Authorized Service Centre) on the same day getting assured to delivered on dtd.31.05.2016, but the O.P.No.2 has not returned the said mobile handset, so also not responding the request of the complainant. Being harassed with the attitudes of the O.Ps. the complainant knocked the door of this Hon’ble Forum seeking adequate relief.
The O.Ps. were noticed through this Forum, where only O.P.No.3 appeared and filed his written statement. The O.P.No.1 and O.P.No.2 failed to either appear or file their written versions and stand ex-parte ultimately. The O.P.No.3 admitted the facts of purchasing the said mobile handset by the complainant and received the same from the complainant after being defected, forwarded to O.P.No.2 for repairing purpose. The O.P.No.3 further submitted that he is a seller of mobile handset of different companies and the service of warranty is provided by the mobile handset company and denying allegations made by the complainant, prayed for dismissal of the case.
Heard the matter in length from both the parties and perused the case record including materials available. It is noted that the complainant had purchased one mobile handset of Intex Aqua Trend by paying-₹ 9,200/- only to the O.P.No.3 on dtd. 03.01.2016. On dtd. 30.03.2016 (with in the period of warranty) the said mobile handset became dead. The complainant informed to the O.P.No.3 where the O.P.No.3 received the handset and submitted to O.P.No.2 for repairing purpose. The O.P.No.2 issued a job sheet bearing No. 603305831012T001 mentioning “Handset is Dead” so also mentioning “In Warranty”, but the complainant did not received yet his repaired mobile hand set yet. In contest, the O.P.No.1 and O.P.No.2 remained silent, which reveals that, they have nothing to say in this case, while the O.P.No.3 submitted that they are only the seller of different mobile handsets and the services on warranty shall be born by manufacturer or distributor.
It is the settled principle of law that, if a consumer buys any goods from a trader and if any defect arises then he/she informs before the said trader from he/she bought, as he has least knowledge about the addresses of manufacturer / distributor of product. It is their co-relationships between trader, distributor and manufacturer thereof. The consumer knows better the address of trader and on good faith he/she buys any goods from them. But in usual practice, while buying any goods the trader conceals some facts of post selling services and mentions the same in very small letters in the bill. The consumer knows the facts of post selling services after due purchase of product(s) which is bad in the eye of law. It is one of the Rights of consumer that he / she should be properly informed before buying any goods as per U/s-6(b) of The Consumer Protection Act,1986 which is as follows:-
“6(b) the right to be informed about the quality, quantity, potency, purity, standard and price of goods or services, as the case may be so as to protect the consumer against unfair trade practices;”.
In the limelight of above mentioned facts and circumstances of the present case, the O.P.No.1 and the O.P.No.2 are found to be deficient in their services and the O.P. No. 3 is found to be commitment of unfair trade practice on their parts respectively. The complainant is found to be eligible to get proper relief. Hence this Hon’ble Forum allows the complaint petition with the following directions in form of order :
ORDER
The O.P.No.1, O.P.No.2 and O.P.No.3 are hereby jointly and severally directed to give a new defect free mobile handset of same brand in place of old defected handset of equivalent price of ₹9,200/- only or refund ₹9,200/-(Rupees nine thousand two hundred) only to the complainant along with pay a sum of ₹ 2,000/- (Rupees two thousand) only towards harassment, mental agony including litigation cost within 30(thirty) days from the date of receiving of this order.
Accordingly the case is disposed of.
Order pronounced in the open court today on this the 26th of October, 2016, copy of this order shall be communicated to the parties as per Rule.
I Agree.
S.L.Behera, President S.K.Ojha, Member
Dictated and corrected by me.
S.K.Ojha, Member
