BEFORE THE PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAMBALPUR
C.C NO- 34/2016
Present-Sri Dipak Kumar Mahapatra, President, Smt. Smita Tripathy, Member (W).
Girikesh Behera,aged about 29 years,
S/O- Manik Ranjan Behera,
R/O- Kausalya Lane,Near NSCB College Chowk,
P.O/P.S-Dhanupali,Tahasil/Dist-Sambalpur. …..Complainant
Vrs.
- Laxmi Enterprises,
Near Bazar Kolkatta,Nayapara,Golebazar,
P.O-Sambalpur,P.S-Town,Dist-Sambalpur.
2. Prakash Informatics
J.M Colony,Lane-I,Budharaja,
P/O-Budharaja,P.S-Aithapali,Dist-Sambalpur.
- Intex India Ltd,
D-18/2,Okhla Industrial Area,
Phase-II,New Delhi.……O.Ps
Counsels:-
- For the Complainant:- Sri Nabin Kumar Pati,Advocate.
- For the O.P-1 :- None.
- For the O.P-2 :- None.
- For the O.P-3 :- None.
DATE OF HEARING : 17.02.2021, DATE OF ORDER : 24.02.2021
SRI DIPAK KUMAR MAHAPATRA,PRESIDENT:- Brief facts of the case is that, on dtd. 03.04.2016, the Complainant has purchased a Intex Mobile handset of model Aqua Star-II from Laxmi Enterprises who is the O.P-1 in this case vide IMEI No-911430500409385 and 911430500409393 on payment of Rs.6,500/-. The Complainant has taken insurance against the mobile handset on payment of premium of Rs499/- through the O.P-1. After 09(nine) months of use the mobile handset was found dead/functionless and did not start. The Complainant informed the matter to the O.P-1 who suggested him to take the defective mobile to the Authorised service centre
(O.P-2) to solve the problem. The O.P-2 after inspecting the mobile handset found that the battery is defective and replaced the same but the problem persisted as before. The O.P-2 checked the mobile handset again and said to the Complainant Rs.4,280/- will be required to solve the problem and prepared a job card no-6030250710131001 dtd.29.02.2016. As the Complainant has purchased the mobile handset for Rs.6,500/- and to repair the same he will have to spend Rs.4,280,he did not agree to the proposal as it was under warranty. The Complainant could feel that there is a manufacturing defect in the mobile handset hence he opted to get replaced the mobile from the dealer or avail some new model under warranty. The Complainant served pleader notice in the names of the O.Ps which were duly served on them, out of them the acknowledgement of receipt from O.P-1 & 3 were returned to the sender but the receipt of the notice was confirmed from the website by using registration details. As there was no response received from the O.Ps the Complainant sought relief from this Commission as prayed.
The O.P-1,2 & 3, despite of service of notice they did not bother to appear before this Commission thus challenging the allegations made by the Complainant. So taking it in to consideration as “IT IS A YEAR OLD CASE”, this Commission has rightly decided to dispose the case as well setting the O.P-1,2 &3 as ex-parte in this case. Hence hearing conducted exparte under Rule-6 of Order-9 of Civil Procedure Code.
POINTS OF DETERMINATION:-
- Whether the Complainant is comes under the purview of Consumer Protection Act-2019?
- Whether the O.Ps has committed any Deficiency in Service to the Complainant?
From the above discussion and materials available on records we inferred that the Complainant comes under the purview of Consumers as he has purchased a new Intex mobile handset from the O.P-1 with a promise to provide after sales services but neglected the purchaser/consumer/Complainant when he faced certain defects in the said mobile handset after using the same for some months. But despites several visits to the O.P-1,he could not get it repaired through the Authorised service centre (O.P-2), as he (the dealer) has not provided required after sale services to the Complainant though the said handset was within warranty period. The O.P-1 has neglected to provide necessary after sale services and shifted the burden to the Authorised Service Centre(O.P-2)and the manufacturer (O.P-3). But OPs were at least required to repair it. Neither they repaired it properly nor did they replace the defective mobile phone to the complainant, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of O.Ps. This matter has been well settled in the case of “Pallavi vs. Apple India Pvt. Ltd.” decided by the State
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Punjab , Chandigarh on 7th September, 2017.Hence the O.Ps have committed “Deficiency in Service” u/s-2(1)(g) of Consumer Protection Act-2019, by not providing proper services to the Complainant.Hence we order as under:-
ORDER
The Complaint petition is allowed. The O.Ps are directed to replace the defective mobile handset and provide him a brand new Mobile Handset of same make and model i.e. make Intex of model No- Aqua Star-II or refund the cost of the mobile handset of Rs.6,500/-with 9% interest within 30(thirty days) of receiving this order. The O,Ps are further directed to pay Rs. 5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand)as compensation and Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand) towards the cost of litigation within 30 (Thirty) days of receiving of this order, failing which, the complainant is at liberty to proceed in due process of law.
Order pronounced in the open court today i.e, on 24th day of February-2021 under my hand and seal of this Commission.
Office is directed to supply copies of the Order to the parties free of costs receiving acknowledgement of the delivery thereof.
I agree,
-Sd/- -Sd/-
MEMBER.(W) PRESIDENT.
Dictated and Corrected
By me.
-sd/-
PRESIDENT.
