Orissa

Rayagada

CC/68/2017

Ch. Vijay Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mobile World - Opp.Party(s)

Self

18 Sep 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA,

STATE:  ODISHA.

C.C. Case  No. 68 / 2017.                        Date.    18   .    9   . 2018.

P R E S E N T .

Dr. Aswini  Kumar Mohapatra,                                      President

Sri GadadharaSahu,                                                          Member.

Smt.PadmalayaMishra,.                                                  Member

 

Ch. Vijay Kumar, S/O: Ch. Madhu, Raniguda farm,Po/Dist: Rayagada, State:Odisha.  Cell No.9583362711.                       …….Complainant

Vrs.

1.The Propritor, Mobi World, New colony,  Rayagada (Odisha).

2.The Manager, Lava International Ltd. Noida, 201301, Utterpradesh.

3. The Manager, Sreevani Traders, New Colony, Rayagada(Odisha).

                                                                                       …  Opposite Parties.

For the Complainant:- Self.

For the O.P. No.1:- Set exparte.

For the O.P No.2 & 3 :- In person.

 

 

JUDGEMENT

The  present disputes emerges out of the grievance raised in the  complaint petition filed by the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps for  non refund of price towards   LAVA  mobile set  which was found  defective   during warranty period. The brief facts of the case   are summarised here under.

 

The factual matrix of the complaint in brief is that, the Complainant had purchased a Mobile set Make LAVA V—5   bearing IMEI.No.. 911498350725531 and IMEI No.911498350792473  on dated.31/05/2016 from O.P.No-01  by paying the considerable amount of Rs.13.000/-. After purchase of just completion of   some months the said mobile hand set became hang and automatically shut down, and  the said set became shown various problems like, hang, automatic switch on/off,  non function of internet & other software problems. The complainant during the month of  November, 2017 approached the OPs  service centre situated at Rayagada(Odisha)   and obtained the Job card by depositing the defective set to rectify the defects. But though the service centre  tried to repair the set but returned the same without rectifying the defects arising in the set, and advised to contact the company i.e. OP  No.2(Manufacturer), thus the complainant contact the OP.No.2 through phone but for no result. Further the complainant requested the OP.2 to rectify the defect but the OP.2 avoided him in one pretext or the other. Hence the complainant came to a conclusion that, the said set has some inherent defect which could not be repaired by the OPs. For the over act of the OPs the complainant harassed a lot. The complainant being a busy in their work internet is highly required for his profession. Hence the complainant craves the leave of the forum for such illegal action of the OPs, and he inflicted to great humility, financial hardship and mental agony. So he prayed the Forum to direct the OPs to refund the price of the above mobile set a sum of Rs.13,000/- along with cost,   compensation and for such negligent and deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and any other relief as the forum deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.

        On being noticed the O.P No.1  neither entering in to appear before the forum nor filed their  written version though availing  of more than  07  adjournments. Complainant consequently filed his memo and prayed to set exparte of the O.P No.1.  Observing lapses of around 1  year  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 from  the   complainant set the case  exparte against the O.P No.1. The action of the O.P No.1  is against the principles of  natural justice as envisaged  under section  13(2) (b)(ii) of the Act. Hence the O.P No.1  were  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.

 

Upon  Notice, the O.Ps No.2 & 3 put in their appearance and filed joint written version through their in which  they refuting allegation made against them.  The O.P No.2 & 3 taking one and another pleas in the written version   sought to dismiss the complaint as it is not maintainable  under the C.P. Act, 1986. The facts which are not specifically admitted may be treated  as denial of the O.P  No. 2 & 3. Hence the O.P No.  2 & 3 prays the forum to dismiss the case against  them  to meet the ends of justice.

Heard arguments from the O.P  No.  & 3 and from the complainant.    Perused the record, documents, written version  filed by the parties. 

 

This forum  examined the entire material on record  and given  a thoughtful consideration  to the  arguments  advanced  before us by  the  parties touching the points both on the facts  as well as on  law.

                                                               

 

        FINDINGS.

From the records it reveals that, there is no dispute that the  complainant had purchased a mobile set Model No. LAVA V-5  inter alia bearing IMEI.No.. 911498350725531 and IMEI No.911498350792473  from the O.P. No.1    by paying a sum of Rs. 13,000/-  vide invoice bill Dt.31.5.2016 with  one year warranty(copies of the  invoice is in the file which is marked as Annexure-I). After purchase of just completion of   some months the said mobile hand set became hang and automatically shut down, and  the said set became shown various problems like, hang, automatic switch on/off,  non function of internet & other software problems. The complainant complained the O.Ps service centre   for necessary repair in turn the service could not make perfect running condition with in warranty period  (Copies of the  service report  is in the file which is marked as Annexure-2).   The complainant further approached the O.Ps for return the money which he spent but for no use.

The O.Ps 2 & 3 in their written version  submitted that the complainant has not  handed over the hand set to the service centre 2^nd. time, but the company  is ready to rectify the defect of the consumer’s mobile, if  not rectified  then also the O.Ps are ready to replace  with a new one mobile. If the consumer will  not  ready to receive the mobile set then company is ready to pay the amount  of his purchased price, but the complainant  should return  the  defective hand set along with all box pack accessories to   O.Ps.

 

As per  advise  of the O.Ps 2 & 3 the complainant  has produced the mobile set before the service centre, but the service  centre  could not made perfect the above set  defect free as the parts of the above  mobile set  are not available. So the  service  centre moved the matter to the O.P. No.2 (Manufacturer) for refund of price of the above set  to the complainant.     During the course of hearing  the O.P. No.3  submitted  that  accordingly  the forum  passed  order.  According to the order of the forum we will comply the same.

To meet the ends of justice the following  order is passed.

 

                                                                        O R D E R

           

 

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

           

            The O.P  No.. 2 (Manufacturer)  directed to return back the defective product from the complainant  by paying the price of the  above mobile set  a sum of Rs. 13,000/- besides to pay an amount of Rs.1,000/- towards cost of  litigation .  

        The O.Ps 1 & 3  are directed to refer 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      18^th.    .  day  of   September, 2018.

 

 

MEMBER                                                        MEMBER                                      PRESIDENT