Orissa

Rayagada

CC/305/2016

Sri Govinda Prasad Rath - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Cellnet Telelink Dealer Retailer Of HTC mOBILE - Opp.Party(s)

Self

15 Sep 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA,

STATE:  ODISHA.

C.C. Case  No. 305 / 2016.                               Date.   15    .    9   . 2018.

P R E S E N T .

Dr. Aswini  Kumar Mohapatra,                                      President

Sri GadadharaSahu,                                                          Member.

Smt.PadmalayaMishra,.                                                  Member

 

Sri Govinda Prasad Rath, Development Officer, LIC of India, Po/Dist: Rayagada, State:Odisha.  Cell No. 7008052897                                 …….Complainant

Vrs.

1.The Propritor, M/S.  Cell Net Tele Link’s Dealer(Extention counter)Bapuji Nagar, Bhubaneswar.    

2.The Manager, H.T.C India Pvt. Ltd.,  Corporate office, G-4, BPTP park Avenue, Sector- 30, Near NH-08,  Gurgaon -122002.

                                                                                       …  Opposite Parties.

For the Complainant:- Sri D.Ravi Prasad, Advocate, Rayagada.

For the O.Ps :- Set exparte.

 

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   HTC 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 HTC One  E 9 dual sim  bearing IMEI.No.. 357709063170836 on dated 14/12/2015 from O.P.No-02  by paying the considerable amount of Rs.36.500/-. 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, uncontrolled brightness, non function of internet & other software problems. The complainant during the month of  November, 2016 approached the OPs  service centre situated at Vizag   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 Development  Officer, of LIC 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.36,500/- along with a punitive cost of Rs.7,000/- as compensation and for such negligent and deficiency in service on the part of the OP.s and any other relief as the forum deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.

        On being noticed the O.Ps neither entering in to appear before the forum nor filed their  written version though availing  of more than  12  adjournments. Complainant consequently filed his memo and prayed 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 from  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.Ps 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.      

        Heard from the complainant at length. 

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

                                        FINDINGS.

        It reveals from the record that, the complainant has filed copy of retail invoice of OP.no.1 dt.14.12.2015, and a service job sheet of  service centre dtd.08.11.2016 which is in the file marked  as Annexure-I and Annexure-2

.           From the above contentions it revealed that the complainant has purchased the mobile set on dt. 14.12.2015and the same became defective with in valid warranty. As per the service warranty condition the complainant complained the OP.s for necessary repair/replacement showing some defects, but neither of the OPs repaired the set through their service center nor replaced the set with a new one and expressed their inability to repair/replace the defective set. It is further seen that, the OPs.No.1 & 2 neither replaced the set nor render any service to that effect prior to receiving notice of this forum and being adamant did not cared to file their written version  or any other documents, which amounts to deficiency in service and attracts various provisions of the C.P. Act 1986. The complainant being a Development Officer, of LIC, going through mental agony with great discomfort, inflicted financial losses filed this present complaint under compulsions. 

            From the above discussions and perusing the documents filed by the complainant we are of the view that, the said set of the complainant has some inherent defect and the OP.s despite receiving notice from this forum not taken any positive steps to settle down the matter, and failed to render service to the complainant, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OP.no.1 & 2 as envisaged in Sec.2 (1)(d) of the Act, hence the complainant is entitled for such relief as claimed.

            The complaint is allowed against the OPs. with costs.

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  on exparte.

            The O.P. No.2  (Manufacturer)  is directed to return back the defective product from the complainant  by refunding mobile price a sum of Rs.36,500/-   inter alia to pay Rs.1,000/- towards cost.

            The  O.P No.1(Retailer)  is directed to refer the order to the O.P.No.2 for early  compliance.

             The entire directions shall be carried out with in 30 days from the  date of receipt   of this order. Serve the order  to the  parties free of cost.

 

Dictated and corrected by me.    

 

Pronounced in the open forum on   15^th.   day of  September, 2018.

 

 

 

MEMBER                          MEMBER                                                              PRESIDENT