Orissa

Rayagada

CC/32/2017

Sri Radha Govinda - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Manaja Mobiles - Opp.Party(s)

Sri Jagannath Dora

20 Sep 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA,

STATE:  ODISHA.

C.C. Case  No. 32 / 2017.               Date.     23.9.  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 Radha Govinda Dora, S/O:  Madhaba Chandra Dora,   AT.Po: Kolnara,  Dist:Rayagada  (Odisha).                                                                  …. Complainant.

Versus.

1.The  Manager, Manas Trading & Co., Po/ Dist: Rayagada  (Odisha).

2.The Manager,  Bankeswari Cell Point Service Centre of Gen mobile, Rayagada.

3.The Manager,  Gen Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Noida-201301, Goutam Budha Nagar, Dadri, U.P.                                                            … Opposite parties.

For the Complainant:-

For the O.P 1 & 2:- Set exparte.

For the O.P. No.3:-Self.

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

 

            That on DT. 18.3.2016 the complainant has purchased  Zen mobile  phone from the O.P. No.1  Black Zen Kult 10 mobile having IMEI No. 1 911490950122003  and IMEI No. 911490950132002 and paid a sum of Rs. 9,500/-.  In turn  the  O.P. NO.1 issued  invoice vide No. 802 Dt. 18.3.2016. The said set having one year warranty . During the warranty period the set has given various soft wear problems for which the complainant   given the  set to the  O.P. No.2  but after a long time the service centre returned the mobile phone without  rectifying the problem. The said set is not working properly for the last eight months  and all the O.Ps wanted to expire the warranty period to avoid the warranty condition.  Now the above set is unused. Hence this case.   The complainant prays the forum direct the O.Ps to  pay back the price of the mobile set i.e. Rs. 9,500/-  with  interest  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 1  & 2  neither appeared nor filed written version. Hence the O.Ps 1 &2  set exparte.

 

            The O.P. No.3 filed written version. The O.P.No.3 submitted that  the case is not maintainable both in eye of law as well as record and the same is liable to be dismissed. The facts stated in the complaint  are false, misconceived, baseless, unfounded, frivolous and concocted and liable to be dismissed.  All the allegations of the  complainant are lie. The complainant be put to strict proof of the same.  The averment of the complaint petition are wrong and hereby denied. The complainant  has neither proved and nor provided any document regarding the defect of his aforesaid  mobile. The O.P. No.3 prays the forum the complainant is not entitled for any relief as   prayed in the  complaint petition and thus the complaint of the complainant may be  dismissed  for the best interest of justice.

The O.P  No. 3   appeared and filed their written version.  Arguments from the  the O.Ps   and from the complainant  heard.   Perused the record, documents, filed by both  the parties. 

            The  O.P. vehemently advanced arguments touching the points both on the facts  as well as on  law.

          FINDINGS.

                Regarding the contentions of the O.P. No. 3 that the complaint petition  is not maintainable  in  this forum.  We are of the opinion that the case  is relating to defective goods  which is covered under section 2(i)(f) of the C.P. Act. The C.P. Act provides that  “Defective means any fault, in imperfection or shortcoming in the quality, quantity, potency, purity are standard which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force”.                                                                           After amendment made by  the C.P. Act   of 2002 wherein it  is made clear that the Users and includes the provisions of which means that when a person is using the product of the O.P.No.2   purchased from the  O.P.No.1 he is also coming within the definition of consumer and the service provided  or attached to the said  goods in the shape of warranty or guarantee is also available to the users.

Admittedly the O.P. No. 1  selling the product manufactured by the O.P. No. 3  and they also  issuing  warranty card against  the said product to the consumers which was attached to the said product.  The O.P. No.1  is  marketing the products. When the consumer is purchasing the consumer goods he is under the  bonafide believes that the said goods is having the warranty or guarantee  attached to it.

Coming to the merits of the case the complainant was purchased the above  set  from the O.P No. 1   on payment of consideration  an amount of Rs. .9,500/-  on Dt. 18.3.2016  (copies of the  retail  invoice) marked as Annexure-I.  On perusal of the record we observed  the complainant   availing     free  service,    but  no improvement  made in the above set.    Hence the  complainant    complained to the O.Ps to replace the defective set with a new one.

In the  catena of  judgements  the Hon’ble Supreme Court and  Hon’ble National Commission observed when a  consumer purchases goods   from the O.Ps he has  not only purchased  the mobile  but  also  the service associated with  it.

Further this forum observed   frequently  the complainant had to run  to the service centre for  rectification of the above set.  The complainant  not satisfied with the  running of the above set. The complainant  expressed  during the course of hearing  that defects could not be rectified by the O.Ps inspite of  repeated attempts  and it rendered useless to him.  Further the complainant  argued  the O.Ps are falsely alleging that they have rectified all the defects and the same is beyond  their capacity for rectification  since the  above set is with patent manufacturing  defects.

The complainant made several complaints with the O.Ps pointing out the defects  which goes on to show that  right from  the very beginning  the above set was not performing  well and continued to repeatedly develop defects  resulting  in  non-performance which was intimated by the complainant  to the O.Ps. Further we observed on repeated complaints made  by the complainant to the O.Ps neither the defects have been removed nor replaced  with a new.   We observed  inspite of  required  services made  with in the  warranty  period  the above vehicle could not be rectified.  We  hold   at this stage if the above set required frequent servicing then it can be presumed that it is a manufacturing defect. If a defective vehicle is supplied a consumer is entitled to get refund of the price of the  vehicle or to replace with a new set and also the consumer concerned is entitled  and has a right to claim compensation and cost to meet the mental agony. In the instant case as it appears that the  above  set which was purchased by the complainant has developed  defects and the O.Ps were unable to restore its normal functioning during the warranty period.   

In the above facts, circumstances  & on perusal of the record, the complaint petition,   documents, written argument  and referring on above Citations there  exists a strong “prima-facie” case in favor of the complainant.

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

                                                ORDER.

 In the result with these observation, findings, discussion  the complaint petition is allowed in part  on contest against  the O.P 3  and  exparte against  the O.P. No.1 & 2..

            The O.P. No.3  is   ordered to replace the above defective  mobile set with a  new one  which shall be free from any defect with  fresh  warranty.  The O.Ps are ordered to pay Rs.500/- towards  litigation expenses.

The  O.P. No.1  & 2 are directed to refer the matter to the O.P. No.3 for immediate 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.

Dictated and corrected by me

Pronounced  on  this          23rd.          day of   September, 2017.

 

 

Member.                                  MEMBER.                                                        PRESIDENT.