Orissa

Rayagada

CC/247/2016

Sri Balakrushan Sahu - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Manager, Trading & Co - Opp.Party(s)

Self

21 Nov 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA,

STATE:  ODISHA.

C.C. Case  No. 247 / 2016.                                       Date.     21. 11 . 2017.

P R E S E N T .

Dr. Aswini  Kumar Mohapatra,                   President

Sri GadadharaSahu, .                               Member.

Smt.  Padmalaya  Mishra,                          Member

Sri Balakrushna Sahu, S/o:  Narasingha Sahu,  At/Po: Kolnara,  Dist.Rayagada,State:  Odisha.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       …….Complainant

Vrs.

1.The Manager, M/S. Manasa Trading  Co., G.K.Padhi complex, Near Hotel Kapilas, New Colony, Rayagada.

2.The Manager, Bankeswari Maa Cell Point, Intex service centre,Ist. Floor, Near old gate, Rayagada.

3.The Manager, Intex Technology India Ltd., D- 18/2, Okhela Area, Phase-II, New Delhi- 110020. info@intexmobile.in                                                               .…..Opp.Parties

Counsel for the parties:                         

For the complainant: - Self.

For the O.Ps  :-Exparte.

                                       J u d g e m e n t.

        The  present disputes 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   mobile set  price.  The brief facts of the case  has summarised here under.

 

          That the complainant  on Dt. 1.9.2015 had purchased an intex mobile from the O.P.No.1 having IMEI No. 911446150226366 and paid  Rs. 9,500/-.  In turn the O.P. No.1 issued cash invoice vide R. No. 97 Dt.1.9.2015 in favour of the complainant. Within warranty  period  the set has given various problems for which it has gone  for service to the O.P. No. 2 for more than 3 times and without  giving  proper service  the O.P. No.2 returned the set to the complainant.   Now the said set  is not l working  for the last four months  and the O.Ps are not heard the grievance  of the complainant to solve the problems.   Hence this  case filed by the complainant before the forum and prays the forum direct the O.Ps to refund  price of the above mobile set and such other  relief as the hon’ble forum deems fit and proper for the best interest  of justice.

 

          On being noticed the O.Ps neither entering in to appear before the forum nor filed their  written version inspite of more than  11 adjournments has been given  to them. Complainant consequently filed his memo and prayer to set exparte of the O.Ps.  Observing lapses of around one year  for which the objectives  of the legislature of the C.P. Act going to be destroyed to the prejudice of the interest of the complainant.  Hence after hearing  from the complainant set the case  exparte against the O.Ps. The action of the O.Ps are against the principles of  natural justice as envisaged  under section  13(2) (b) (ii) of the Act. Hence the O.Ps. set exparte  as the statutory period  for filing of  written version was over to close the case with in the time frame permitted by the C.P. Act.

                                                FINDINGS.

During the course of exparte hearing  the complainant  annexed  certain documents such as the  Retail invoice issued by the  O.P. No.1. 

After carefully examining the evidence on record, we find no cogent reason  to disbelieve or discard the evidence already adduced by the complainant. The documentary evidence  tendered by the complainant clearly tends support and absolute corroboration   to  the evidence.  

In absence of any rebuttal materials from the side  of   O.Ps  there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence put forth  by the  complainant  before the forum  whose evidence  suffers from no infirmity. The evidence adduced by the complainant  clearly leads us to arrive at a just conclusion that there is not only deficiency  in service  but also negligence  on the part of the O.Ps in not rectifying  the defect  in the Mobile set  as well as in not replacing the mobile in question  with a new one  as per the  provisions laid down under section- 14 of the  C.P. Act.

Law is well settled that no dealer can absolute himself from the liability of selling  any substandard goods as he can always prevail  upon the  manufacturer for redressing  the grievance of a consumer. It is also well settled  in a catena of decision that both the manufacturer and dealer are  jointly  and severally liable  to its customer. It is held and reported in  2004 CTJ  Page No. 205  the hon’ble Supreme Court  has clearly  observed that “ in case of delivery of defective vehicles to the customer the liability to pay him the amount  is joint and several of the  dealer and manufacturer”.

On careful analysis   of the evidence on record both oral and documentary, we are clearly of the opinion  that  inspite of doing the needful, the O.Ps are failed to redress the deficiency in service and as a result the complainant was constrained  to file this complaint before the forum claiming the relief as sought for.  In that view  of the matter the O.Ps are jointly and severally liable.

                    We observed during the warranty period the above set has been found defective and O.Ps have been requested  the O.P. No.2  to replace the  mobile in question  with a new one.   After receipt of the grievances, no action has been taken by the said O.Ps in ensuring repair/replacement of the set as alleged. Not responding to the grievance of a genuine consumer amounts to deficiency in service and in that line we hold that all the parties  are jointly and severally liable  in restoring  the set to the satisfaction of the consumer during the warranty period.

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

                                                           

 

                                                                        ORDER.

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

The O.P No.3  is  ordered to take back  their product  and  refund price of the    mobile  set   a sum of Rs. Rs.9,500/- to the complainant.  The O.P No.3  is  further ordered to pay Rs.1,000.00 (Rupees One thousand)only towards litigation  expenses. 

            The O.Ps No. 1 & 2 are ordered to refer the matter to the O.P. No.3 for early  compliance of the above order.

             

            The O.Ps are  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 concerned immediately  on demand free of charges.

Dictated and corrected by me

Pronounced on this      21^st.           day of   November, 2017.

 

MEMBER.                                            MEMBER.                                            PRESIDENT.