Orissa

Rayagada

CC/224/2016

Krishna Sachdev - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Malati Cell - Opp.Party(s)

Self

31 Oct 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA,

STATE:  ODISHA.

C.C. Case  No. 224 / 2016.                                Date.                10. 2017

P R E S E N T .

Dr. Aswini Kumar Mohapatra,                           President.

Sri  Gadadhara Sahu, B.Sc.                                                            Member.

Smt. Padmalaya  Mishra,  LL.B                                                    Member

 

Sri  Krishna Sacbdev, S/O: Ramesh Kumar Sachdev, Raniguda Farm,

 Po/ Dist. Rayagada,Odisha.                                                               ………Complainant

Vrs.

1.The Manager, Malati Cell phone, Po/Dist:  Rayagada

2.The Manager, HTC Customer service,  AT TVS Electronics, Guindy, Chennai-600 032.                                                                             ……...Opp.Parties

For the Complainant:-Self.

For the O.Ps. :- In  person.

JUDGMENT

                The  present dispute arises out of 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 mobile set .  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   through O.P. No.1  the  authorized  dealer on Dt. 20.10.2015 HTC desire-826 with IMEI No. 359632061161623 for a total price of Rs.25,800/-with one year warranty having the service facility provided at Rayagada itself.  The mobile set purchased by the complainant is a  defective  one and suppressing the above fact  by the O.P. No. 2  marketed  the product through the O.P. No.1.  It has provided with touch screen but it is not working properly and  hanging problem. So also the battery  is discharging  automatically  and giving  heat to the product and also to the charger. Automatic switch  off. The matter was referred to the O.Ps  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 2   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.  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. 25,800/- the complainant has purchased mental agony and trouble and as such the above sales practice by the O.P. No. 1, 2  are deemed to be unfair.  In view of the  constant problem the complainant prays the forum direct the O.Ps  to refund the cost of the mobile set Rs.25,800/-with  interest  and for causing the mental agony and financial loss award compensation 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.

 

                On being noticed the O.P  No.1    neither appeared nor filed written  version. Hence the O.P. No.1  set exparte to close the   case.        

The O.P. No.2 filed written version and submitted that the present complaint filed by the  complainant is not maintainable and is liable to be dimissed by his hon’ble forum for suppression of material facts and lack of authenticity. The complainant has never contacted  O.P. No. 2 for  any kind of repair  or service  and the O.P. No.2 is  totally unaware of the case. The O.P. No.2 prays the forum to dismiss the above case against O.P. No.2    for the best  interest of justice.

               

                Herad  and  perused the documents  filed by  both the parties.

 

FINDINGS.

On perusal of the record it is revealed that  the purchase of mobile  by the complainant  is not denied by the O.Ps.    The O.Ps  submitted   that             they are ready to give the service as per the conditions of the warranty given to the said set.   The   complainant submitted that the O.Ps  had not given good service as per the warranty  condition  when he approached. The  O.Ps have  also refused to give any thing in writing.  So he has filed this complaint for such refusal.

                It is settled principle of law that no consumer will make any such complaint if there is no such deficiency.

 

                During the  course of hearing  the  O.Ps have agreed to replace the above set with a new one  higher  end  model of  HTC  company  without  charging  any extra cost.  The complainant also agreed the version of the O.P No.2

               

                In the above facts, circumstances  & on perusal of the record, the complaint petition,   documents, arguments of both the parties  we allow the complaint petition in part.

 

                Hence to meet the ends of justice  the following order is passed.

 

ORDER.

                In the result with these  observations, findings, discussion the complaint petition is allowed  in part on contest against the O.Ps.

           

            The O.P No.2   is ordered to replace the  HTC desire-826 purchased by the complainant   with a new defect free set  with  higher end model HTC desire 10 Pro without charging any extra price.

 

            The O.P. No.1 is ordered to refer the matter to the O.P. No.2 for early compliance.

               

                The O.Ps are ordered to comply the above direction within one month from the date of receipt of this order.  Service the copies of the order to the parties.

 

Dictated  and  corrected  by  me.

Pronounced on this                     Day    of         October,   2017.

 

 

                Member                                   Member                                                           President