Orissa

Rayagada

CC/382/2015

B.V. Manoj Ku Rao - Complainant(s)

Versus

Manasa Trading Co. Rayagada - Opp.Party(s)

Self

31 May 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGAD

C.C. Case  No.382/ 2015.

 P R E S E N T .

Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash, LL.B,                             President.

Smt. Ch.  Nirmala Kumari Raju, LLB,                    Member

B.V. Manoj Kumar Rao, Near old bus Stand, Po/Dist:Rayagada.

                                                                                                                ………Complainant

                                                            Vrs.

 

1. The Manager, Intex Technology(India) Ltd., D-18/2 OKHLA Industrial, Phase-II, New Delhi,110020.
2. The Manager, Intex Service Centre, Near Old Gate, Station Road, Po/Dist:Rayagada.
3. M/s Mansa Trading Co, G.K. Padhi Complex Near Kapilas Hotal Over Bridge, Po/Dist: Rayagda

  ……...Opp.Parties

Counsel for the parties:

For the complainant:  In person

For the O.ps : Exparte

 

                                                            JUDGMENT

                        The case of the complaint in brief is that,  the complainant has purchased  one   Intex Mobile Model No. Aqua style pro   from O.p. No.3    with a  consideration of Rs.7,200/- vide  Bill No.1367 dt.03.11.2014    with one year warranty but   the  mobile set  started giving  trouble after  few months of  its purchase and  did not function properly. The complainant immediately complained the matter to the Opp.Party No. 2 to provide after sale service but the O.p fails to remove the defect..  Hence, the complainant   finding no other option filed this present dispute with a prayer to refund the full sale consideration amount of Rs.7,200/-  and also claim  compensation  for mental agony and litigation expenses . Hence, this complaint. On being noticed, though the O.ps appeared but failed to filed written version and as the O.ps failed to proceed in this case despite service of notice, the proceeding was set exparte against them.

                        Heard and perused the complaint petition and documents filed by the complainant and we accept the grievance of the complainant. The Complainant  argued that the O.ps have sold a defective  mobile set  to the complainant and claimed that the O.ps caused deficiency in service and deprived of the complainant of enjoyment of the mobile set  since the date of its purchase which caused mental agony and harassment to the complainant.

Now we have to see whether there was any negligence of the Ops  in providing  after sale service  to the complainant as alleged ?

 

We perused the documents filed by the complainant.  Since the mobile set found defective after its purchase and the complainant informed the Ops regarding the defect but the Ops   failed to remove the defect. At this stage we hold that if the mobile set require servicing since the date of its purchase, then it can be presumed that it is defective one and if the defective mobile set is sold to the complainant, the complainant is entitled to get refund of the price of the article or to replace a new one or remove the defects and also

 

                                              

                                                   2   

                       the complainant is entitled and has a right to claim compensation and cost to meet his mental agony, financial loss.  In the instant case  as it is appears that the mobile set  which was purchased by the complainant had developed  defects and the O.ps were unable to restore its normal functioning during the warranty period. It appears that the complainant invested a substantial amount and purchased the mobile set with an expectation to have the effective benefit of use of the article. In this case, the complainant was deprived of getting beneficial use of the article and deprived of using the mobile set  for such  and the defecates were not removed by the O.ps who  know the defects from time to time from the complainant.

Hence, in our view the complainant has right to claim compensation to meet his mental agony, financial loss. Hence,  it is ordered.

 

                                         ORDER

 

                        The  opposite parties  are directed to replace  the handset with fresh warranty and pay cost of Rs.500/- . Further, we direct the Ops to pay the aforesaid award amount  within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the O.Ps are liable to pay  interest  @  12%  p.a. on the above awarded amount till  the date of payment. Accordingly the complaint is allowed.

                        Pronounced in open forum today on this 02^th day of March,2016 under the seal and signature of this forum.

                         A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties    free of charge.

 

 

            Member                                                                                               President

Documents relied upon:

By the complainant:

1. Xerox copy of Cash Memo

 By the Opp.Party: Nil

 

                                                                                                                President