Orissa

Rayagada

CC/125/2016

Sri Subodh Kumar Mishra - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Laxmi Ganesh Traders, - Opp.Party(s)

Self

30 Nov 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL FORUM, RAYAGADA,

 

C.C. Case No.125/ 2016.

P R E S E N T .

Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash, LL.B                                     President

                    And

Sri  Gadadhara Sahu,B.Sc.                                               Member

            Sri Subodh Kumar Mishra, S/o Sri P.K.Mishra, resident of New          Colony,            Rayagada, Po/Ps/Dist. Rayagada, Odisha.

                                                                                                            …………..Complainant

                                    Vrs.

 

 

1. M/s Laxmi Ganesh Taaders,New Colony, Rayagada, Po/Ps/Dist. Rayagada, Odisha.
2. M/s Excellent Care, Dolomandapa Sahi,Near Radha Temple,Jeypore-7,Koraput District,Odisha,764001.
3. Sony Care , Dondaparti, Dwarika Nagar, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh.
4. Sony India Pvt. Ltd., Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044.

                                                                                                            ………….Opp.Parties

Counsel for the parties:

For the Complainant:  Self

For the  O.Ps: Ms.Shweta Bharati & Associate Advocate, Rayagada.

                                                            JUDGMENT

                        The facts of the complaint  is that  the complainant  has purchased a Sony Mobile Set from the Opp.Party No.1  on  dt.02/05/2015 vide Cash Memo No.610 with a consideration of Rs.21,500/- with one year warrant  but after  its purchase the set  found defective   for which the complainant given for first service to OP 2 at Rayagada and it worked temporarily and  when the set  is not functioning properly he has taken the set to OP 4 at Visakhapatnam but  the Op 4 failed to remove the defects. Hence the complainant finding no other option prays before this forum  to direct the O.ps to  give a new  set or refund the cost of mobile set Rs.21,150/-    and  award compensation of Rs.10,000/-   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 C3  on 02.05.15  from O.p 1  and  used the said mobile without any problems for more than 9 months  as no complaint ever was received by the Ops  till January,2016 and the mobile was running perfectly as per its specification during that period. The complainant approached the OP 2 on 25.01.16  for the first time alleging the defect of  “phone hang”  and the said handset was duly inspected by the  service engineer  and  fixed the minor problem  by updating the software of the handset. It was observed by the service engineer that because the complainant has loaded too many games in the handset,  he was facing  hanging problem in the mobile  and o no other problem was detected in the mobile and there was no other service request received by the Ops from the complainant with respect to the said mobile. The complainant has failed to provide any evidence to the effect that he ever approached the Ops after first service   and his problems were not addressed. Hence, in absence of any documentary proof it is difficult to believe in the averments of the complainant. The Ops have provided the service solution to the complainant when he approached them and they have no knowledge of any further issues faced by the complainant as he did not approach the Ops for second time. Therefore no deficiency of serve can be attributed to the Ops and the present complaint needs to be dismissed with exemplary cost.                       

On the basis of the pleadings, the following  points  are  need to be answered  for determination  of this case.

(i)         Whether the mobile set  is having  any   manufacturing defect ?

(ii)        Whether there is any deficiency in service  on the part of the opposite parties , if            so, is he liable for compensation and to what extent ?

 Point No.1

                         It is the case of the complainant that after its  purchase  the mobile  set   found defective  and the service centre  failed to remove the defects . If the defect in the mobile set is not  a manufacturing one , the service centre could have able to remove it  and  at least within the warranty period there would be   no further defect  in the set but in the instant case, the defects could not be removed .  After repair by the service centre    again  defect was detected for which the complainant was not able to use it  and ultimately took the shelter of this forum.       Hence, it is clear that  the defects in the mobile set  was not rectified  at  the  service centre  and the set  was returned to the complainant with the existing problem and  the O.Ps  totally failed to repair the  set  as the defects in the mobile set is a manufacturing one.

                        Word ‘defect’ as defined under Section 2(1)(f) of the Consumer Protection Act means any fault, imperfection or shortcoming in the quality, quantity, potency, purity or standard which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or under any contract, express or implied or as is claimed by the trader in any manner whatsoever in relation to  any goods.

                        Hence, in the Issue  No.1 is answered   in favour of complainant.

 

Point No.2

                        As the Point No.1 is answered in favour of the complainant , it is concluded  that the opposite parties are deficient in their service .Sec.2(1)(g) ‘ Deficiency in Service means  “ any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the  quality , nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance  of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service”.  After its purchase , the mobile set  given problem for which complainant   went to the service   centre  for repair  for two times  but the defects could not be rectified .Therefore, the O.Ps are liable to repair  the mobile set to its original condition and  also they are liable to pay compensation for mental agony   along with  cost of litigation  for filing this dispute. Accordingly, the Point No. 2 is answered  in favour of the complainant. . Hence, we  allowed the complaint   partly and  dispose of the matter with the following directions.

                                                                       ORDER

                        The Opp.Parties are  directed to replace the mobile set  or refund the cost of the mobile set  and  pay compensation of Rs.1,000/- towards mental agony and cost of Rs.500/- towards litigation expenses to the complainant . The matter is disposed of with  the direction to the Ops   to make the payment to the complainant within one month, failing which complainant is at liberty to file Criminal Proceeding U/s 27 of the C.P.Act,1986 for realization  of the amount.             

                        Pronounced in the open forum today on this 24^th  day of November,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.610 dt.02.05.15
2. Copy of  Service centre
3. Copy of Regd. Post receipt
4. Copy of A.D

 

For the Opp.Parties: Nil

 

                                                                                                            President