DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: BHADRAK

Dated the 3^rd day of February, 2020

C.D Case No. 86 of 2017

                                                   Present 1. Shri Raghunath Kar, President

                                                                2. Shri Basanta Kumar Mallick, Member

                                                                3. Afsara Begum, Member

Sri Pravanjan Samal

S/o Pravat Kumar Samal

At/Po: Pragati Vihar, Salandi Colony, By-pass,

Ps: Bhadrak (T),

Dist: Bhadrak

                                                        ……………………. Complainant

            (Versus)

1. Manager, Reliance Retail Ltd.

4GFBCA03, Block Bldge- 4,

Reliance Corporate Park,

C/o Reliance Petro Chemicals Ltd.

Ghansoli Thana- 400701, Mumbai

2. Proprietor Reliance Retail Ltd.

Reliance Digital & First Floor,

Revenue Plot No- 555, Khata No- 634, Bhapur Bazar,

Mouza-Satyanarayan, Barhampur, Dist- Ganjam, Odisha

                                                   …………………………..Opp. Parties

Counsel For Complainant: Sri N. C. Mohanty, Adv & Others

Counsel For the O.Ps No. 1 & 2:  Ex-parte

Date of hearing: 25.07.2018

Date of order: 03.02.2020

RAGHUNATH KAR, PRESIDENT

This dispute arises out of the complaint filed by the complainant alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice against the O.Ps to the effect that the complainant a mobile set HTC-626 Digital on dt. 3^rd December, 2016 with a price of Rs 10,660.30p/-. Complainant used the mobile and with seven day the mobile set shown screen living defect and not work properly. Then went soon and asked the matter to OP No. 2 and request OP No. 2 repair the same or refund the cost of mobile set to him. Then complainant day by day mat OP No. 2 and requested him to repair the mobile set or refund the cost of mobile set to give new set in exchange of the previous one. But OP No. 2 was assuring to do either within a month after getting answer from you the notice No. 1. The mobile set is neither solve the purpose of the complainant nor the O.Ps did take care within the warranty period to serve the purpose of the complainant as a result the complainant was harassed. When he was prevented from attaining the important calls and when he approached his colleagues to attained and to make call back, he felt guilty and inferiority complex grow with him for no fault of the complainant. During aggrieved by such deficiency of service of O.Ps, which is required to be maintained by or has been undertaken to be performed by O.Ps in pursuance of a contract in relation to the services to be rendered by the O.Ps, it compelled the complainant to serve the notice on OP No. 1 & 2 through Advocate notice for necessary reliefs from the O.Ps. But those O.Ps though received the Advocate notices but did not give any need to the notices sent by complainant through his Advocate. The cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum when the O.Ps did not give any reply after receipt of notice dt. 23.11.2017. The cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this Forum as the mobile set defect at Bhadrak. Hence the complainant has sought for the following reliefs.

1. The complainant be awarded Rs 10,660.30p/- towards the cost of the mobile set.

2. The complainant be awarded Rs 30,000/- towards mental harassment, as well as Rs 500/- towards cost of the notice.

Documents filed by the complainant.

1. Legal notice- 2 sheets.

2. Receipts of the registered post- 2 numbers.

3. Reliance Retail Ltd.- 3 sheets.

On the other hand both the O.Ps have neither appeared in the Forum nor filed their written version.        

OBSERVATION

We have already perused the complaint and documents filed by the complainant. The non appearance and the non filing of written version by the O.Ps reveals that there is veracity in the allegation of the complainant against the O.Ps. Heard the O.Ps appeared in this Forum and filed their written version the truth should have been come out in to the limelight.  As per our observation we hold that the O.Ps committed deficiency of service and dishonest trade practice. The O.Ps have not replied the legal notice sent by the complainant expressing his grievance. The allegation made by the complainant has not been denied or opposed by the O.Ps. We presume that there is authenticity in the allegation made by the complainant as well as the documents filed by him. Although the O.Ps have not been set ex-parte but their silence has proved that they are supposed to the set ex-parte. Hence it is ordered;

​ORDER

The complaint be and the same is allowed against O.Ps on ex-parte. The O.Ps are here by directed to supply a new mobile set to the complainant or to refund back the cost of the mobile set Rs 10,660.30p/-. The O.Ps are also directed to pay Rs 5,000/- to the complainant towards mental agony and harassment and Rs 2,000/- towards cost of the litigation. The O.Ps are further directed to comply the order within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.

This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this day of 3^rd February, 2020 under my hand and seal of the Forum.