Sri Jamimadar Mohan filed a consumer case on 06 Mar 2018 against M/s Kapilas Cyber Solutions in the Rayagada Consumer Court. The case no is CC/32/2016 and the judgment uploaded on 02 May 2018.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, RAYAGADA,
STATE: ODISHA.
C.C. Case No. 32/ 2016. Date. 6 . 3 . 2018.
P R E S E N T .
Dr. Aswini Kumar Mohapatra, President
Sri GadadharaSahu, Member.
Smt.PadmalayaMishra,. Member
Sri Jami Madan Mohan, S/O: Sri Jami Rama Krishna Rao, At: Vidya Nagar, 5h. lane, Po/ Dist.Rayagada, State: Odisha. Cell No. 9437835756 …….Complainant
Vrs.
3.The Manager, Syntech Technology India Pvt. Ltd., F-2, Block No. B-1, Ground Floor, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi, 110044.
4.The Manager, U.D. Steel solutions Pvt. Ltd., Jessore Road, Flat No.9(B), Ground Floor, Kolkatta- 700089. ……...Opp.Parties
For the Complainant:- Sri SonaJagadish Kumar, Advocate.
For the O.Ps:- 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 mobile set Gionee within warranty period. The brief facts of the case has summarised here under
That the complainant had purchased one mobile phone manufactured and marketed by the O.Ps No.2&3 through O.P. No.1 the authorized dealer on Dt. 01.02.2015 Gionee E-life- E-7 with IMEI No. 862583026330029 for a total consideration amount of Rs.22,000/-with one year warranty having the service facility provided at Rayagada itself. The mobile set purchased by the complainant is a manufacturing defective one and suppressing the above fact by the O.P. No. 3 & 4 marketed the product through the O.P. No.1. It has provided with touch screen facility but it is not working properly with hanging problem. So also the battery is discharging automatically and giving heat to the product and also to the charger. The matter was referred to the O.P. No.2 two times and he was not able to remove the said problem stating that it is having inherent manufacturing defect in it and only the O.Ps 3 and 4 can do any thing. Ultimately the said set is returned without removing the defects and as such the complainant has approached for the following reliefs before this forum . During the warranty period the set has given constant trouble and the service provider is unable to remove the said problem and as such by paying the price of the mobile Rs.22,000/- the complainant has purchased mental agony and trouble and as such the above sales practice by the O.Ps. are deemed to be unfair. In view of the constant problem for the defective mobile the complainant prays the forum direct the O.Ps to refund the cost of the mobile set Rs.22,000/-with interest and for causing the mental agony and financial loss award a cost of Rs.5,000/- and also award cost of the litigation and such other relief as the hon’ble forum deems fit and proper for the best interest of justice.
In the instant case the copy of the complaint was referred to the O.Ps directing to given written version of the case. After service of notice the O.Ps failed to avail of the opportunity for filing of the version of the case. On number of dates they failed to appear on the version dates fixed. As the version of the case was not filed by the O.Ps within the time frame given, we have no alternative but to resort to Section -13(2)(b)(ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986 and O.Ps were set exparte.
During the exparte hearing the complainant examined himself and proved the payment of the money to the O.Ps. The complainant has also produced the service job sheet including warranty card relating to the above case. The complainant also argued due to non repair of the above set the complainant suffered a lot of financial trouble and mental agony. The complainant prays the forum as the O.Ps not heard any grievance of the complainant till date so the O.Ps be directed to refund purchase price along with bank interest.
In the absence written version from the side of the O.Ps. it is presumed that the allegations levelled against the O.Ps. deemed to have been proved. The complainant had paid the amount for the good service as per warranty card which intended with the O.P and the said payment is made for the consideration for the said service. When the O.Ps have failed to give such service as per warranty card for which the O.Ps have received the amount. It is deemed that the O.Ps were callous to the allegations and it amounts to deficiency of service.
In the present case the O.Ps 2 to 4 . are jointly and several liable.
Hence to meet the ends of justice, the following order is passed.
ORDER.
In resultant the complaint petition stands allowed in part on exparte against the O.P 2 , 3,4 and dismissed against the O.P. No.1.
The O.P No. 2 3, 4 are ordered to take back their product and refund price of the Gionee mobile set a sum of Rs. 22,000/- inter alia to pay Rs.1,000.00 towards litigation expenses to the complainant .
The O.Ps ordered to comply the above direction within one month from the date of receipt of this order. Serve the copies of the order to the parties free of cost..
Dictated and corrected by me
Pronounced on this 6th. day of March, 2018.
MEMBER. MEMBER. PRESIDENT.
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.