Orissa

Rayagada

CC/403/2015

Sri Debasish Garada - Complainant(s)

Versus

Malati Cell Shope Rayagada - Opp.Party(s)

Self

07 Apr 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA,

STATE:  ODISHA.

C.C. Case  No. 403/ 2015.                                        Date.   7   .    04    . 2018.

P R E S E N T .

Dr. Aswini  Kumar Mohapatra,                                                                   President

Sri GadadharaSahu,                                                                                        Member.

Smt.PadmalayaMishra,.                                                                                Member

 

Sri Debasish Garada, S/O: Sri Judhestira Garada, Nebru Nagar, Ist. Lane,    Po/Dist:Rayagada, State:  Odisha.   Pin No. 765 001.                                        …….Complainant

Vrs.

1. The Manager,Malati Cell shoppe, New colony, Rayagada(Odisha),
2. The Manager, M/S. Sony India Ltd.,  Head office at A-31, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044.

Opposite parties.

For the Complainant:- Self.

For the O.Ps:- Set exparte.

JUDGMENT

 

       The  curx of the case is that  the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps for  non refund mobile price within warranty period for which  the complainant  sought for redressal of the grievances raised by the complainant.

On being noticed  the O.Ps neither entering in to appear before the forum nor filed their  written version despite of more than  22 adjournments has been given  to them. Complainant consequently filed his memo and prayer to set exparte of the O.Ps.  Observing lapses of around 2 years  for which the objectives  of the legislature of the C.P. Act going to be destroyed to the prejudice of the interest of the complainant.  Hence after hearing  the  counsel for the complainant set the case  exparte against the O.Ps. The action of the O.Ps is against the principles of  natural justice as envisaged  under section  13(2) (b)(ii) of the Act. Hence the O.P. set exparte  as the statutory period  for filing of  written version was over to close the case with in the time frame permitted by the C.P. Act.

          We therefore constrained to  proceed to dispose of the case, on its merit.  Heard from the complainant.   We perused the complaint petition and the document filed by the complainant.

         FINDINGS.

Admittedly, the complainant had purchased the mobile from the  O.P. No.1 for  personal use. He had purchased Sony Xperla C-3  on payment  of  consideration worth Rs.18,500/- bearing bill No. 3089 Dt.9.8.2015  inter alia IMEI No. 356872064689310 with a period of one year warranty. It is the grievance of the complainant  that after purchase of the said mobile, it was found defective   in few months within the warranty period i.e. suddenly started camera problems. The defective problems of the mobile set  referred to the O.P.  but remained unsolved and therefore, ultimately consumer complaint was filed.

            From the records it is seen that, the complainant has filed Xerox copy of purchase bill which is marked as Annexure-I.  Hence it is abundantly clear that, the complainant had purchased the above set from the O.P.

                On examining the whole transactions, it is pertinent to mention here that, there is One year valid warranty for the alleged above set and the defect arose with in some month of use. As the OPs deliberately lingering to file their written version or any other documents after lapses of above 2(two) years, and observing the present situation, and nothing adversary to the complainant as adduced by the OP, the forum relying on the version of the complainant is of the view that, the alleged  set has inherent defect and there is vivid deficiency in service by the OPs declining to redress the grievances of his consumers i.e.  the  present complainant, hence the complainant is entitled to get the price of the said set or a new same set instead of the defective one along with such substantial compensation for all such harassment having been impounded with mental agony and deprivation of the use for the same  for long time  and so also the cost of litigation. We found there is deficiency in service by the OPs and the complainant is entitled to get relief.

                On appreciation of the evidences adduce before it, the forum is inclined to allow the complaint against the OPs.

                                                                                O R D E R

                In  resultant the complaint petition  stands allowed  in part  on exparte against the O.Ps.

                The O.P. No. 2  is  directed to return back the defective product from the complainant  by paying the price of the  above mobile set  a sum of Rs. 18,500/-     besides  to pay an amount of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one  thousand) towards   mental agony   and litigation cost to the complainant.

                The O.P. No.1 is directed to refer to the matter to the O.P. No.2 for early compliance of the above order.

                The entire directions shall be carried out with in 30 days from the  date of receipt   of this order.

Service the copies of the order to the parties free of cost.

Dictated and corrected by me

Pronounced on this                  7th.  day of   April, 2018.

 

 

MEMBER                                                                              MEMBER                                                    PRESIDENT