Orissa

Rayagada

CC/434/2015

V. Raja Ramasti - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S Indira Fancey Store - Opp.Party(s)

Self

17 Jun 2016

ORDER

                     DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA

                                                          C.C. Case  No.434/ 2015.

 P R E S E N T .

Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash, LL.B,                             President.

Sri Gadadhar Sahu,B.Sc.,                                      Member

V.Raja Ramani,D/o V.Srinivas Rao, Gandhi Nagar, Po, Po/Dist. Rayagada.                                                                                                                                                                         ………Complainant

                                                            Versus.

1. M/s  Indira Fancy Store, Main Road, Rayagada.
2. The Manager, Sony India Pvt. Ltd., Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044.
3. Manager, Service Centre of Sony Mobile Excellent Care, Park Street ,Berhampur, Dist. Ganjam.

                                                                                                            ………...Opp.Parties

Counsel for the parties:

For the complainant: In Person

For the O.Ps: Sri K.Ch.Mohapatra,Advocate, Bhubaneswar.

                                                            JUDGMENT

                        The facts of the complaint  in brief is that,  the complainant has purchased  one  Sony Xperia Mobile from O.p. No.1 with a  consideration of Rs.7,990/- on 23.04.2015 vide Retail Invoice  No.7118 with a warranty period of one year  from the date of purchase.   But   after one month of its purchase, the  mobile   did not work properly  and it was duly noticed to the O.Ps but the O.ps have failed to rectify the same and  hence   the complainant   finding no other option approached this forum for relief  and prayed  to direct the O.Ps  to  replace the defective mobile with a new one or to  refund the  cost of the mobile  i.e. Rs.7,990/- with compensation of aRs.2,000/- and cost of litigation Rs.500/-  .Hence, this complaint.

                         On being noticed,  the O.ps  appeared through their advocate  but  unable  to file  filed reply  as such the O.Ps were set exparte and in absence of any reply from the O.ps we proceed the  matter exparte and believed the allegations of the complainant and disposed of the matter with the following observations.

                                                                      

                        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 refund the cost of the mobile set i.e Rs.7,990/- and pay  compensation of Rs.1,000/-  for mental agony undergone by the complainant and cost of Rs.500/- . Further, we direct the Ops to pay the aforesaid award amount  within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the O.Ps are liable to pay  interest  @  12%  p.a. on the above awarded amount till  the date of payment. Accordingly the complaint is allowed.

                        Pronounced in open forum today on this 20^th   day July,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  Retail invoice
2. Xerox copy of Service Job sheet

 

By the Opp.Party: Nil

 

                                                                                                           President