DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, KALAHANDI AT BHAWANIPATNA.

                                                            C.C. Case  No.11/ 2017.

PRESENT

Sri Aswini Kumar Sahoo, M.A, LL.B ,OSPS(I) Sr. Retd.                   President.

Sri Ashok Kumar Patra, Retd. O.I.S  ( I)                                               Member.

Sri Ajaya Mathur, AT: Shyama Shyama Nivas,Statuepada,Po: Bhawanipatna, Dist.Kalahandi, Odisha.                                                                                                                                         

……Complainant

                                                                                Vrs.

1. The Manager,M/s Lava International Ltd.,A/56 ,Sector 64,

Noida-20130,India.

1. The Manager, Raj Electronics,Main Market,Near Ruchi Lodge, Po : Bhawaniptna, Dist.Kalahandi, Odisha,766001.
2. The Manager,LAVA Care,At: Mahavirpada,PO: Bhawanipatna,Dist.Kalahandi, Odisha,766001.

                                                                                                                                ………...Opp.Parties

Counsel for the parties:

For the complainant: In Person

For the O.Ps: Exparte

JUDGMENT

                                The facts of the complaint  in brief is that,  the complainant has purchased  one  Lava  Mobile from O.P. No.1 with a  consideration of Rs.6,300/- on 01.07.2016 vide  Invoice No.1952   but  to the utter surprise the  mobile set  started giving  trouble  during its warranty period  and it was given for service to the authorized service centre and after such service the defects persists and OP failed to rectify the defects and  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  i.e. Rs.6,300/- with compensation .Hence, this complaint.

                                 On being noticed,  the O.P 2 appeared and filed a reply stating therein that he has sold the mobile set   on receipt of consideration amount from the complainant and after receipt of the complaint from the complainant regarding non functioning of the mobile  he sent the mobile set to the service centre. So there is no deficiency  on his part and prayed to dismiss the  complaint against the OP 2.  The OP 1 & 3 neither appeared nor filed written version as such the OP 1 & 3 were set exparte .

                                                                        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 defects were not removed by the O.ps being informed about the same from time to time.

Hence, in our view the complainant has right to claim compensation to meet  his mental agony, financial loss. The complaint is allowed in part on contest  against the OP No. 1 and exparte  against OP No.2 & 3. Hence,  it is ordered.

          ORDER

                                The  opposite parties  are directed to refund the cost of the mobile set i.e. Rs.6,300/-  and pay  compensation of Rs.1500/-  for mental agony undergone by the complainant and cost of Rs.1000/- . 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  @  8.5 %  p.a. from the date of order  on the above awarded amount till  the date of payment. Accordingly the complaint is allowed.

                                Pronounced in open forum today on this 30^th   day August,2017 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  Cash/ Credit Memo No.1952 dt.01.07.2016
2. Xerox copy of acknowledgement of service request.

By the Opp.Party: Nil

                                                                                                                        President