Orissa

Rayagada

CC/68/2016

Sri Krushna Prasad Gupt - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Gourany Ailloys and Iron Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Self

06 Jan 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL FORUM, RAYAGADA,

 

C.C. Case No.68/ 2016.

P R E S E N T .

Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash, LL.B                                     President

                    And

Sri  Gadadhara Sahu,B.Sc.                                               Member

            Sri P.L.Hari Prasad,S/o late P.Chandra Sekhar Rao,aged 34 years, Goutam Nagar, Raniguda, Rayagada.

                                                                                                            …………..Complainant

                                    Vrs.

 

 

1. Kapilas Cyber Solutions, Near Hotel Kapilas,MainRoad,Rayagada.
2. Happy Care Service, Authaorised Service Centre,N-4/251,ID Mazrket RIC Village,Odisha,Bhubaneswar,751015.
3.  Manager, Sales and Marketing, Sony India Pvt. Ltd., A 31,Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044.

                                                                                                            ………….Opp.Parties

Counsel for the parties:

For the Complainant: In person

For the  O.Ps: Sri Sudhansu Sekhar Mishra,Advocate,Jeypore.

                                                            JUDGMENT

                        The facts of the complaint  is that  the complainant  has purchased a Sony Xperia C –C2305   Mobile Set from the Opp.Party No.1  on  dt.20/02/2014 with a consideration of Rs.20,000/-  and during its  warrant period  it has shown trouble  so many times  and the OP 1 get its service through the authaorised service centre  but the defects could not be removed . Hence the complainant finding no other option prays before this forum  to direct the O.ps to replace the mobile set or  pay back the price of Rs.20,000/-     and  award compensation  along with cost  for litigation . Hence this complaint.

                        On being notice, the Opp.Parties appeared through  their Counsel  and files written version denying the allegations on all its material particulars .It is submitted  by the O.Ps  that the complainant  has purchased a Sony Xperia C   on 20.02.14   and the OP 3 provides 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 cannot be held liable for the claims falling outside the scope of the warranty. The complainant after  enjoying the mobile set for almost one year approached the OP 2 on 07.01.2015 with  the issue of SD card problem and upon its thorough inspection by the service engineer of the OP  it was found that the SIM board assembly is required to be replaced  which was duly replaced by the service engineer   on free of cost and the handset was handed over  in perfect working condition.  Thereafter, the complainant never approached the Ops   and the handset is still being enjoyed by the complainant without any sort of defect  and despite the said fact the complainant  filed the instant case  to harass the Ops and to avail undue advantage and to earn wrongful gains at the cost of Ops and thus  the complaint is liable to be dismissed .                         

 

 

                                                                       FINDINGS

                         It is the case of the complainant that the mobile  set was found defective during its warranty period and the Ops failed to remove the defects. In its reply the Ops submitted that the complainant after  enjoying the mobile set for almost one year approached the OP 2 on 07.01.2015 with  the issue of SD card problem and upon its thorough inspection by the service engineer of the OP  it was found that the SIM board assembly is required to be replaced  which was duly replaced by the service engineer   on free of cost and the handset was handed over  in perfect working condition and thereafter, the complainant never approached the Ops   and the handset is still being enjoyed by the complainant without any sort of defect

           

                        We have heard and perused the complaint petition and documents filed by the complainant and we accept the grievance of 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 was  found defective  during its warranty period and  the complainant  informed the Ops regarding the defect and  the  Ops    removed  the defect free of cost  . At this stage we hold that  if the mobile set  require  service during its warranty period and the if  Ops fail to provide proper service as per their warranty condition, then it can be  termed as deficiency in service  on the part of the Ops and  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 but in the instant case the Ops claims that the service engineer of the OP  inspected the mobile and  found that the SIM board assembly is required to be replaced and it  was duly replaced by the service engineer   on free of cost and the handset was handed over  in perfect working condition and thereafter, the complainant never approached the Ops   and the handset is still being enjoyed by the complainant without any sort of defect. Since the complainant has not objected to the submission of the Ops, it is believed that the complainant  is using the  mobile set  without any further defect  and the complainant has no further claim against the Ops. Hence, we do not found any fault from the side of the Ops and the complainant is not entitled to get any relief. Hence, it is ordered.

.

                                                                       ORDER

                         In view of the aforesaid findings, we are of the opinion that  the  complaint petition is having no merit  and hence, the complaint petition is dismissed . No costs. Parties to bear their own cost.        

                        Pronounced in the open forum today on this 24^th  day of December,2016 under the seal and signature of this forum.

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

 

Member                                                                                               President

Documents relief  upon;

For the complainant:

 

1. Copy of Money receipt  No.2238 dt.20.02.2014
2. Copy of job sheet.

For the Opp.Parties: Nil

 

                                                                                                            President