Orissa

Rayagada

CC/254/2016

Padma Naik - Complainant(s)

Versus

Kapilas Cyber Solutions - Opp.Party(s)

Self

11 Apr 2017

ORDER

            DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,                                           RAYAGADA

                  

                                    C.C. Case  No.254/ 2016.

P R E S E N T

Sri Gadadhara Sahu, B.Sc.                                  Member

Smt.Padmalaya Mishra,LL.B                                 Member

Padma Naik,S/o Lima Naik, of village Dangasile,P.S.Deraguda,Dist. Rayagada.                                                                                                                                               ………Complaint

                                        Vrsus

 

1. Kapilas Cyber Solution, Beside Hotel Kapilash,Main Road, Rayagada, Po/Ps/Dist. Rayagada.
2. Sai Maruti Electronics, Swagath Hotel Line, New Colony,Rayagada,Po/Ps/Dist.Rayagada.
3. Manager, Intex Technology(India) Pvt Ltd. ,Okhla Industrial Area,  New Delhi,110020.                                            ……...Opp.Parties

Counsel for the parties:

For the complainant: Sri R.K.Jena & Associates Advocate, Rayagada.

For the O.Ps:  Exparte

 

                                           JUDGMENT

                The facts of the complaint  in brief is that,  the complainant has purchased  one Intex  mobile  from O.p. No.1 with a  consideration of Rs.,12,900/- on 21.11.2015 with warranty    and during its warranty period the  mobile set  was  found defective  and     for which  the complainant informed to the OP 1     and the Op 1  sent the mobile set  to its authorized service center  i.e. P 2 but OP 2  keep quite and failed to repair 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, the Ops neither  appeared nor filed any written version and as    such the O.ps  were  set exparte and in absence of any written version from the Ops we  heard  the complainant and  give our findings.

                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  service within its warranty period  and if the OP failed to remove the defects, 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 appears that the mobile set  which was purchased by the complainant had developed  defects  within  its warranty period 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.12,900/-  and for causing mental agony and harassment the Ops are liable to pay monetary compensation of Rs.1,000/-   cost of litigation of Rs.500/- to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the O.Ps are liable to refund the   purchased amount of the mobile with 12% interest since the date of its purchase  till its realization.

                Pronounced in open forum today on this 11^th day of April,2017 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.

 

 

 By the Opp.Party: Nil

 

                                                                               President