Orissa

Rayagada

CC/15/13

Sri Satyajit Subudhi, S/o: Late: Umakanta Subudhi, - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Computer Gallery, New Colony, Rayagada and others - Opp.Party(s)

Self

08 Mar 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA,

STATE:  ODISHA.

C.C. Case  No. 13/ 2015.                                          Date.     08  .    03    . 2018.

P R E S E N T .

Dr. Aswini  Kumar Mohapatra,                                                                   President

Sri GadadharaSahu,                                                                                        Member.

Smt.PadmalayaMishra,.                                                                                Member

 

Sri Satyajit Subudhi, S/O: Late  Umakanta Subudhi, Main Road,  Po/ Dist:Rayagada, State:  Odisha.             Cell No. 9040501901.                                                                                                                                                                                                                      …….Complainant

Vrs.

1. The Manager, M/S. Computer Gallery, Convent School Road, New Colony, Rayagada.
2. The Manager, M/S. Sony India Ltd.,  Head office at A-31, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044.
3. The  Manager, S.A.Infosys Ltd., plot No. B-6, Ist. Floor, Saheed Nagar, Bhubaneswar- 751007 ,State:Odisha.

 

For the Complainant:- Self.

For the O.P No.1 & 2:- Sri Sudhansu Sekhar Mishra, Advocate, Jeypore.

For the O.P. No.3:- Set exparte.

JUDGMENT

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 the the sale price  of  defective  2-1 Sony speaker  within warranty period.  The brief facts of the case  has summarised here under.

 

That the complainant had purchased on Dt. 13.12.2013 one Sony 2-1 Speaker model No. SRS D 911 C INS # 62401689 for a cost of Rs. 5,500/- with one year warranty  against the said product.  The above item was found defective  and it was handed over  to the O.P. No.3  for its service during the month of  June, 2014 and he had kept the same with him  for more than 6 months. The O.P. No.3  returned the same without  giving any service and stating that the company seal was tempered  and as such he will not  given the service.  The  complainant has not taken back the same from the O.P. No.3 and it is still lying with him. The O.Ps had supplied  defective set  to him and in order to cover the above fact they had now not taking  the responsibility. Hence this case.  The complainant prays the forum direct  the  O.Ps to refund the price of the said set with monetary compensation for the mental agony  and such other relief as the hon’ble forum deems fit and proper for the best interest of justice.

 

On being noticed the O.P. No.1 & 2  filed joint written version through their learned counsel  and refuting the allegation levelled against  them. The O.Ps taking one and other grounds 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.Ps. Hence the O.Ps No. 1 & 2   prays the forum to dismiss the case against  them  to meet the ends of justice.

On being noticed  the O.P No.3  neither entering in to appear before the forum nor filed their  written version inspite of more than  18 adjournments has been given  to them. Complainant consequently filed his memo and prayer 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  the  counsel for 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.P. 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.

The O.Ps appeared and filed their written version.  Heard arguments from the    O.Ps and from the complainant.    Perused the record, documents, written version  filed by the parties. 

The  parties advanced arguments vehemently opposed the complaint touching the points both on the facts  as well as on  law.

                                                         FINDINGS.

On perusal  of the  written version filed by the O.Ps it is revealed that  undisputedly  the complainant  had purchased  a Sony 2-1 Speaker bearing model No. SRS-D911C. The O.Ps contended in preliminary objections para No.3 that the complainant has not placed on record any document or averment stating the date of purchase  and the dealer from where the subject speaker was purchased. To substantiate the above question the  complainant has filed copies of the  Retail invoice issued by  the O.P. No.1  on Dt. 13.12.2013 which is marked as Annexure-I.

 

The O.P. No.2 provides a warranty of one year on its products from the time of its original purchase and the liability  strictly lies in accordance with the terms and conditions of the warranty provided  by it and can not be held  liable for the claims falling outside the scope of the warranty.  The complainant admittedly without any sort of defect  after  enjoying the above speakers for six months, after inspection of the product, the speakers were found to be tampred/damaged condition.

 

Further the  O.Ps in  para No.9 of the   evidence by way of affidavit clealy   mentioned  that the above speaker was attempted for service by agencies outside our authorized service  net  work and therefore. It could not be considered   under  warranty as  per the warranty terms.In para No. 10  the O.Ps contended  that the complainant despite of knowledge that the above speaker is out of warranty and same could not be repaired/replaced free of cost.  In para No.11 the O.Ps as a good will gesture, offered the complainant here in to exchange the subject  speaker with another model by paying 75% of the actual price i.e. at a discount   of    25% on MRP.  In this connection the  O.P. No.2  on Dt. 26.3.2015   had sent  letter   to the complainant  which is marked as Annexure-2.

 

On perusal of the  complaint petition and written version filed by the parties  this forum agreed with the views taken by the  O.Ps   in their written version and documents  filed in support of this case.   The present case  in hand  the warranty  not covered due to  tampered  by the  complainant as such he is not entitled any  relief  in this case.

Thus,  it    becomes clear that even on merits, complainant is  not entitled to  any claim.

Hence to meet  the  ends  of  justice,  the following   order is  passed.

ORDER.

 

In resultant the  petition filed by the complainant stands dismissed with no order as to cost.

Dictated and corrected by me

Pronounced  on  this                8th. day of        March, 2018.

 

MEMBER.                                            MEMBER.                                                        PRESIDENT.