Orissa

Cuttak

CC/151/2017

Amit Kumar Nath - Complainant(s)

Versus

Lava International Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Self

31 May 2019

ORDER

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

C.C No.151/2017

Amit Kumar Nath,

Res. at:Ward No.15,Bhagara Road,

Baripada.                                                                                                 .… Complainant.

 

Vrs.

1.         Managing Director,Lava International Ltd.,

At:C-7/277,Second Floor Sector-7,Ronini,

P.O:Rohnini,P.S:Ronini South,Delhi.

 

2.        Hari Om Rai,Managing Director,

At:C-7/277,Second Floor Sector-7,Rohini,

P.O:Rohnini,P.S:Rohini South,Delhi.

 

3.        Lava Care,At: Shopping Unit No.89,

Ist Floor,N.S.C.B.Arcade,Big Bazar,Dargha Bazar,

P.O:Buxibazar,PS.Dargha Bazar,Dist:Cuttack.

 

4.       Shyam Dhoon Mobile,

Res. at:Ground Floor,25/26,BhartiaTower,

PO/PS:Badambadi,Dist:Cuttack.… Opp. Parties.

 

Present:               Sri Dhruba Charan Barik,President.

Smt. Sarmistha Nath, Member (W).

 

Date of filing:    12.12.2017

Date of Order:  31.05.2019

 

For the complainant  :    Self.

For the O.P No.1.        :   Sri A.Tripathy,Adv. & Associates.

For O.P No.2 & 4         :   None.

For the O.P No.3         :   Sri B.M.Mohapatra,Adv. & Associates.

 

Smt. Sarmistha Nath,Member(W).

 

                The complainant being a consumer has filed this complaint before this Forum against the O.Ps for Redressal of his grievances under the Consumer Protection Act,1986(Act in short) in terms of his prayer made in the complaint petition.  The allegation made in the complaint is with regard to deficiency in service provided and unfair trade practice adopted by the O.Ps.

1. The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant is a business man and the O.P No.4 impressed upon him to purchase a LAVA-ARC-105 mobile set.  Accordingly he purchased the same by paying Rs.950.00 having IMI Nos.911514007670324 and 911514007670332 on 22.10.2016. (Copy of the money receipt is attached as Annexure-1).  After 11 months, the complainant faced problems as the LCD became dead and black.  He went to the O.P No.3 Service centre and handed over the mobile set to O.P No.3 on 25.09.2017.  The O.P No.3 had received the mobile on dead condition with LCD black.  After 22 days, the O.P No.3 returned the mobile set in same condition and refused to repair the mobile without giving any reasonable cause though the warranty period was still in vogue.  The original repairing receipt was taken by force by O.P No.3 and he did not return the receipt.  (Copy of the repairing receipt and warranty card is attached as Annexure-2 & 3).

Due to non-repairing of mobile set, the complainant is unable to contact his clients for which he has sustained substantial loss.So the complainant has prayed for a direction to the O.Ps to pay a compensation of Rs.70,000/-, to repair the mobile set free of cost and toimpose extra-ordinary cost on O.Ps.

2. The O.P No.1 appeared and filed written version taking the plea that the complainant has misused and mishandled the mobile set for eleven months and prior to one month of expiry of warranty period of mobile, the complainant produced the mobile set before O.P No.3 in dead condition and it was not in a condition to repair.  So the mobile set was returned to the complainant.  The O.P.1 further stated that the O.P No.1 has not sold any defective mobile set to the complainant as alleged by him.
3. Though sufficient opportunity was given, the O.P No.2 did not appear and was set exparte.  Similarly the O.P No.3 though entered appearance but did not file any written version and was set exparte.  None of the O.Ps participated in the hearing.
4. It was argued on behalf of the complainant that during the warranty period, some defects were developed in the mobile set and the complainant handed over the set to O.P No.3 for repair but after 22 days, the O.P No.3 returned the mobile set on the same condition and refused to repair the same without assigning any reason.  So this amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps and they are jointly and severally liable to repair the mobile set free of cost along with compensation and litigation cost.

The entire materials placed by the complainant remains uncontroverted as the O.Ps are set exparte and did not contest the case except filing of written version by the O.P No.1 taking plea of mishandling of set.

On perusal of case record and documents filed by the complainant, we came to the conclusion that O.Ps No.1,2 & 3 are found deficient in providing service as the warranty period was still there.So the O.P No.1,2 & 3 are jointly and severally liable . O.P No.4 being the retailer is not liable.

 

                                                                         ORDER

The case is allowed exparte against the O.P.No.1,2 & 3 and the case is dismissed against O.P No.4..The O.P.No.1,2 & 3 are directed to repair the defective mobile set of the complainant free of cost.They are also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and harassment along with Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses to the complainant within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by the Hon’ble Member in the Open Court on this the 31^st day of May,2019  under the seal and signature of this Forum.

 

  ( Smt. Sarmistha Nath )

                      Member (W)                                                                                                                                                                                                                  (Sri   D.C.Barik)

                                                                                                              President.