Orissa

Rayagada

CC/331/2016

Sri Subhra Ranjan Swain - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Fortune Tradition - Opp.Party(s)

Self

18 Jan 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA

 

                                                 C.C. Case  No.331/ 2016.

P R E S E N T .

Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash, LL.B,                             President.

Sri Gadadhara Sahu,B.Sc.                                      Member

Sri Subhra Ranajan Swain, S/o Bipin Bihari Swain, aged about 26 years, Resident of New Colony, Rayagada, Po/Ps/Dist. Rayagada, Odisha.                                                                                                                                                                                  ……Complainant

                                                            Vrs.

1. M/s Fortune Traders, Dwarakapuri Complex Udit Nagar, Rourkela, Po/Ps Rourkela, Odisha.
2. Samsung India Electronic Pvt. Ltd.,B-1,Sector 81,Phase-2,Noida District, Goutambudha Nagar,U.P.,201301.
3. Customer Service, Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd.,2^nd Floor, Tower-C, Vipul Tech Square, Sector-43,Golf Course Road,Hariyana-122002.
4. Sri Umesh Chandra Polai, F 2 F Engineer, Samsung Service Centre, Opposite Andhra Bank, Rayagada, New Colony, Po/Ps/Dist. Rayagada, Odisha.                                                                                                                                                                         …...Opp.Parties

Counsel for the parties:

For the complainant: In Person

For the O.P No.1 & 2:  Sri  K.C.Mohapatra and Associates  Advocate, Bhubaneswar.

                                                            JUDGMENT

                        The facts of the complaint  in brief is that,  the complainant has purchased  a   Samsung Mobile  from O.p. No.1 with a  consideration of Rs.15,500/- on 02/10/2015 with one year warranty   and during    its  warranty period the set  was found  some defect for which the complainant approached the OP 4   but the OP 4  and even such service  the defects persist in the mobile set  and on demand the OP 4 refused to given the job sheets for the service done by him earlier. Hence, the complainant   finding no other option approached this forum for relief  and prayed  to direct the O.Ps  to   refund the  cost of the mobile  Rs.15,500/- and  award cost and   compensation. Hence, this complaint.

                        On being noticed,  the O.p  2 & 4 appeared  through their counsel  and filed any written version  inter alia denying the petition allegations on all its material particulars.

                        On being noticed, the O.p 2 & 4  appeared  through their advocate and filed written version inter  alia denying the petition allegations on all its material particulars. It is submitted by the O.P 2 & 4  that  the case is not maintainable  and liable to be dismissed.  There is no cause of action to file this case against the O.ps.  The real fact is that the complainant has purchased the mobile set  on 20.10.2015 from the OP 1 for a consideration amount of Rs.15,500 with a warranty period of one year.  After purchase the complainant  using the mobile set smoothly without any allegation  and  the warranty period was expired on 19.10.2016. On 30.07.2016  the complainant has visited the OP 4  and requested to upgraded the software of his  said mobile and the OP 4  received the mobile and immediately upgraded the software of the mobile of the complainant and delivered the  same in OK condition to the complainant and thereafter the complainant has not moved to any Ops  for defect of his mobile till today.   The complainant falsely alleged that  he has visited five times to the OP NO.4  and during 5^th time the OP 4  refused to give service and   also refused to give the job sheet for the service done by him earlier.   The complainant all of sudden in oblique motive and with ill intention has filed this complaint petition  before this forum with false and vexatious pleas against the OPs without any prior information to the Ops and without any cause of action arose against the Ops only to tarnish the reputation of the Ops and to secure illegal and unlawful gains from the OP 3. There is no  inherent manufacturing defect or the Ops committed any unfair trade practice or any deficiency in service rather the complainant is giving mental  tension and harassment to the OP2 by filing this complaint and hence prayed to dismiss the complaint.

 

                                                                      FINDINGS

                        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 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 mobile set  with a new one with fresh warranty and pay cost of Rs.500/-   within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the O.Ps are liable to refund the cost of the mobile set  with interest  @  12%  p.a. . Accordingly the complaint is allowed.

                        Pronounced in open forum today on this 29^th day December,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  Money Receipt.
2. Xerox copy of acknowledgement of service request.

By the Opp.Party:

1. Acknowledgement of service request.

 

                                                                                                           President