Sri N. Mahapatra, President : The complainant Ranjit Maharana had filed this complaint before this Ld. Forum with a prayer to direct the OPs to compensate the amount of Rs. 3,398/- towards loss of mobile and to pay Rs. 30,000/- towards mental agony and financial loss along with Rs. 10,000/- towards litigation and other expenses to the complainant.
The case of the complainant is that OP No.1 supplied a mobile phone KALL calling tablet (N 1) colour Black, Item No 14971 to the complainant through Naaptol delivery shopping agent of OP No.1 vide invoice No. 846063500394419 on dated 09.07.2018 after receiving an amount of Rs. 3,398/- on the order No. 49301986 dated 08.07.2018 of the complainant having one year warranty of the said mobile. After the delivery of the said mobile on the next day i.e. on 09.07.2018 the same was switched off and was not able to function. So the complainant informed to OP No.1 regarding the none functioning of the said mobile, as such OP No.1 directed to the complainant through message on 15.07.2018 to contact to the service center i.e. OP No.2. Accordingly the complainant deposited his mobile in the service center of OP No 2 on 06.08.2018. After running several times to OP No.2's service center the complainant informed to the OP No.1 to return the mobile, lastly on 12.11.2018 the complainant had gone to the service center of OP No.2 and asked to return the mobile where he was demanded Rs. 2,000/- by OP No. 2 for returning the said mobile even after verifying the warranty card. Then the complainant informed the matter to OP No.1 on the same day but till date neither OP No.1 nor OP No.2 has returned the said mobile. For the aforesaid reasons the complainant sustained mental agony, physical harassment and financial loss. Hence finding no other alternative alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant compelled to file this case against the OPs before the Ld Dist Forum, Nayagarh.
The complaint is admitted and notices were issued to OPs for their appearance and to file written version on the date fixed. Accordingly OPs appeared through their Advocates. OP No.1 filed his written version, evidence on affidavit with a memo to treat the written version as written notes of argument denying the cause of action and liability on his part but OP No.2 did not file any written version and remain silent for which OP No.2 set Ex-parte.
It is submitted by the OP No.1 in his written version that, OP No.1 acts as a seller or vendor of various electronics products including the subject matter of the present complainant. OP No.1 is only to sell and dispatch the ordered products through post or courier service as per the order of the addresses. It is also stated that the orders are booked either by offline through telephone call or by online portal through M/S Naaptol On line Shopping Pvt Ltd. Further more the OP No.1 is not involved on any kind of manufacturing or production activities and this business based on online shopping model having no shop/ show rooms/ counter sale for the products which they use to sale. It is also stated the allegation made by the complainant is false and after receiving the information of the complainant, OP No.1 immediately provided the remedy of repair and details of service counter to the complainant. It is also stated that after repairs the product by the technical person of OP No.2 informed the complainant to take back the products but instead of collecting the said repaired product, the complainant demanded the product cost from the service center but the service center refused to do so, as he is not authorized. As such the OPs have no deficiency in service and never caused any mental agony and harassment to the complainant as there is no cause of action and liability against OP No.1 thus the same deserved to be dismissed and further more this Ld. Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
To substantiate his case, the complainant has filed documents as per list and evidence on affidavit. Similarly OP No.1 filed written version, evidence on affidavit and written notes of argument.
On the date of hearing, we heard from both the sides , due to rival pleading by both the parties the following issues are settled for adjudication of this case.
Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of OPs ?
Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for?
Issue No. 1 : In the instant case after perusal of the record and scrutiny of the documents it reveals that OP NO.1 has supplied a mobile phone KALL calling Tab (N 1) black colour having item No. 14971 to the complainant through Naaptol delivery shopping agent of OP NO.1 vide invoice No. 846063500394419 on dated 09.07.2018 after receiving an amount of Rs. 3,398/- on the order No. 49301986 dated 08.07.2018. OP No.1 has also issued warranty card for one year to the complainant. It also reveals from the copy of the documents that OP No.1 has delivered one mobile through Naaptol Nayagarh after receiving the cash from the complainant, but after receiving the same on the next date it became switched off. For which the complainant informed the matter to OP No.1 through message who advised the complainant to produce the said mobile before the service center of OP No.2. Accordingly the complainant deposited the said mobile before OP No.2 on 06.08.2018, but after running several times to OP No.2's service center the said mobile was not repaired. Thereafter the complainant informed the OP No.1 to refund the same, but on 12.11.2018 the complainant had gone to the service center of OP No.2 to get back his mobile. But instead of returning the said mobile OP No.2 demanded Rs. 2,000/- to return the same even there is warranty of one year of the said mobile. Due to non payment of Rs. 2,000/- OP No.2 neither returned the said mobile to the complainant nor repaired the same. As such in our considered view undoubtedly the complainant has sustained mental agony, physical harassment and loss as the OPs are negligent in rendering proper service to the complainant.
Issue No. 2: In the instant case it reveals from the materials on record, OP No.1 has supplied the mobile as per the order of the complainant through Naaptol Nayagarh and due to defect, OP No.1 directed the complainant to deposit the defective mobile before its service center i.e OP No.2. Accordingly the complainant has deposited the said mobile in OP No. 2's service center, but after going several times neither the OP No.2 returned the said mobile to the complainant nor repaired the said mobile within the warranty period of one year rather demanded Rs. 2,000/- from the complainant. For the aforesaid reasons the complainant sustained mental agony and financial loss. Hence it is crystal clear that there is deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. For which the complainant is entitled to get certain relief.
Hence it is ordered.
ORDER
The complaint is allowed on contest against OP NO.1 and on Ex-parte against OP No. 2. Both the OPs are jointly and severally liable as such they are directed to supply a new mobile of same brand and same model with fresh warranty of one year or in alternative to refund the cost of the mobile of Rs. 3,398/- to the complainant. Further the OPs are directed to pay Rs. 1,000/- towards mental agony and Rs. 1,000/- towards cost of litigation to the complainant within one month from receipt of this order failing which all the dues shall carry 9% interest per annum.
The final order is prepared by us, corrected,
signed, sealed and pronounced in the open
Forum on this 19th October 2019.
