Orissa

Cuttak

CC/2/2019

Aditya Mathur - Complainant(s)

Versus

Maa Tarini Mobile Galary - Opp.Party(s)

B P Bal

24 Jun 2019

ORDER

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

C.C No.2 /2019

 

Aditya Mathur,

At:Rajabagicha,PO:Telenga Bazar,

P.S:Purighat,Dist:Cuttack.                                                        … Complainant.

 

                Vrs.

 

1.        The Proprietor,

Maa Tarini Mobile Gallery,

Infront of Amber NX,

Bajrakabati Road,Dolamundai,

Cuttack-753003.

 

2.       The Proprietor,

Hara Agency(Motorola Authorized Service Center),

Singh Plaza,Besides Kedarson,

Bajrakabati Road,Dolamundai,

Cuttack-753001.

 

3.        The Managing Director-cum-Chairman,

Motorola Mobility India Pvt. Ltd.,

12^th Floor,Tower-D,dlf Cyber Greens,

DLF Cyber City,Gurgaon-122002,Haryana… Opp. Parties.

 

Present:               Sri Dhruba Charan Barik,LL.B. President.

Smt. Sarmistha Nath, Member (W).

 

Date of filing:   07.01.2019

Date of Order: 24.06.2019

 

For the complainant        :       Mr. B.P.Bal,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.P.No.1 & 2       :                              None.

 

Sri Dhruba Charan Barik,President.

 

                The complainant has filed this complaint alleging therein deficiency in service against the O.Ps and seeking appropriate relief against them pin terms of his prayer in the consumer complaint.

1. The facts of the complaint in a nutshell revealed that on 10.1.2018 the complainant purchased a Motorola mobile set vide Model   No. MOTO G 5 S PLUS from O.P No.1 the authorized dealer vide Bill No.488 for Rs.15,990/-.  Annexure-1 is the photo copy of the invoice of the said mobile phone.  There was provision for warranty for 12 months from the date of purchase.  After about 9 months of use of the said phone, it developed some complications.  It was verified and found that the said mobile set was defective for Set heat and Auto switch off as revealed from the job card no.6765 dt.10.10.2018 vide Annexure-2.  The complainant intimated this fact to O.P.2 who is authorized service centre and hand set was handed over to him for repair.  After 7 days, O.P.2 returned the mobile set to the complainant with the assurance that the same problem would never occur in future.

It is further stated that after use of the said set for about 2 months same problem along with other problems were noticed in the hand set.  The mobile hand set was getting switched off automatically and the front camera was never made functional.  This fact was brought to the notice of O.P.2 and it was requested that since the hand set was suffering from manufacturing defect, it should be replaced by a good defect free one or the cost of the said phone should immediately be refunded to him.  But O.P No.2 despite repeated requests made by the complainant remained silent over the matter without taking appropriate steps.  The problems noticed in the mobile hand set developed within the warranty period.  When no attempt was taken to repair the hand set, the complainant sent legal notice dt.7.12.18 to the O.Ps by registered post with A.D demanding replacement of the defective hand set or refund of the cost of the said mobile set together with other reliefs.  Annexure-3 is the copy of the said legal notice issued to the O.Ps which was received by them in time without any response. Inaction of the O.Ps in the matter has caused mental agony and harassment to him for which he was constrained to file the present case against the O.Ps with the prayer that they be directed to refund Rs.15,990/- to him towards cost of the defective mobile set together with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of purchase till realization.  It is also prayed that they be directed to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant along with other reliefs as deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice.

2. The O.Ps were set exparte.
3. We have gone through the case record and heard the learned advocate for the complainant.

Considering the uncontroverted averments made by the complainant supported by the affidavit, it is held that the O.Ps 2 & 3 are held liable for rendering deficient service to the complainant.O.P.1 being the dealer who sold the above set to the complainant is not liable.Hence ordered;

                                                                                 ORDER

The case be and the same is allowed exparte against O.Ps 2 & 3 and dismissed exparte against O.P. No.1.O.Ps 2 & 3 are directed to refund Rs.15,990/- received towards cost of the mobile set to the complainant together with compensation of Rs.10,000/- to him.

The order shall take effect 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 President in the Open Court on this the 24^th day of June,2019  under the seal and signature of this Forum.

                                                                                                                                                  

    (   Sri D.C.Barik )

                                                                                                                     President.

                                                                                                                                                              

                                                                                                              (Smt. Sarmistha Nath)

                         Member(W)