Orissa

Rayagada

CC/28/2017

Nirakaar Padhi - Complainant(s)

Versus

Majhi Gouri Tele Communications - Opp.Party(s)

Self

22 Dec 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA,

STATE:  ODISHA.

C.C. Case  No. 28/ 2017.                                          Date.       22.     12   . 2017.

P R E S E N T .

Dr. Aswini  Kumar Mohapatra,                          President

Sri GadadharaSahu,                                        Member.

Smt.PadmalayaMishra,.                                   Member

Sri Nirakar  Padhi, S/O:  Sri Somanath Padhi, Raniguda farm,  Po/Dist.Rayagada, State:  Odisha.765  001.                                                                                           …….Complainant

Vrs.

1.The Manager, Majhigouri  Tele  communication, Main Road, Rayagada(Odisha).

2. The Manager,  Intex  service  centre,     Rayagada(Odisha).

3. The Manager, Intex  Technology  India Pvt. Ltd., D-18/2, Okhla Industrial  Area, Phase-2, New Delhi -  110020.                                                                                                                                                                                                .…..Opp.Parties

Counsel for the parties:                                 

For the complainant: - Self.

For the O.Ps  :- Set exparte.

                                                          J u d g e m e n t.

         

          The  present disputes arises out of the complaint petition filed by the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps for non refund of  Mobile price Rs.10,990/-.  The brief facts of the case  has summarised here under.

 

          That the complainant had purchased a Intex cell  vide model No. AQUA Super  4 G K 50940 (T)  bearing  IMEI  No.911472600450869 and  No.911472600450877  from the  O.P. No.1 on  Dt.18.8.2016  by paying a sum of Rs.10,990/-.  The phone battery has been bloated and no charge was happened to the phone.  The same has been intimated to the O.P. No.1 & 2 . In spite  of repeated  attempt by the  O.P. No.2   the phone was not functioning  properly  and as the software also not working and the same also  has intimated to the O.P.No.3  by issuing a  lawyer notice on Dt. 10.1.2017  but  they did not took  any  responsibility for the  same. Hence this case. The complainant prays the forum direct the O.Ps to refund the  price of the mobile  a sum of Rs.10,990/- and such other relief  as the hon’ble forum deems fit and proper for  the best interest of justice.

 

In the instant case the copy of the complaint was referred to the O.Ps  directing to given  written version of the case.  After service of notice the O.Ps failed to avail of the opportunity for filing  of the version of the case.  On number of dates they failed  to appear  on the version dates fixed. As the version of the case was not filed by the O.Ps   within the time frame given, we have no alternative  but to resort to Section -13(2)(b)(ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986  and  O.Ps were   set  exparte.

During the exparte  hearing the complainant examined himself and proved the payment  of the  money  to the O.Ps inter alia filed copies of the legal notice sent to the O.P.No.3 on Dt. 30.1.2017. . The complainant also argued  due to non repair of the above set the complainant suffered a lot of financial trouble  and mental agony. The complainant prays the forum as the  O.Ps  not heard any  grievance of the complainant  till date   so the  O.Ps  be  directed to refund  purchase price   along with  bank interest.

In  the absence  of  written  version  from the side  of the O.Ps. it is  presumed that the allegations  levelled against   the  O.Ps. deemed  to have  been  proved.    The  complainant   had  paid  the  amount   for the good service  as per  warranty  card  which  intended      with the O.Ps and the  said payment is  made for the consideration for the said service.  When the O.Ps  have failed to  give such service  as per warranty card  for   which  the O.Ps  have   received   the  amount.   It is  deemed that the  O.Ps   were   callous to the allegations  and it amounts  to deficiency  of service.

Hence to meet  the  ends  of  justice,  the following   order is  passed.

ORDER.

                In the result with these  observations, findings, discussion the complaint petition is allowed  in part on exparte against the O.Ps.

               

                The O.P No.3  is   ordered to take back their product  and  refund price of the Intex mobile set  a sum of Rs.10,990/- to the complainant  Inter alia to pay Rs.1,000.00  towards litigation  expenses.

The O.P. No. 1 and 2 are directed to refer the matter to the O.P.No.3 for early compliance.

                The  O.Ps  are  ordered to comply the above direction within one month from the date of  receipt of this order.   Serve the copies of the order to the parties.

Dictated and corrected by me

Pronounced  on  this    ^t.     22^nd.           day  of        December                  , 2017.

 

PRESIDING    MEMBER                        PRESIDING MEMBER                                       PRESIDENT.