Orissa

Cuttak

CC/58/2018

Arpit Sikdar - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s OA Infotech - Opp.Party(s)

M Ghose

26 Aug 2019

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,CUTTACK.

C.C No.58/2018

 Arpit Sikdar,

Res. of Shakti Kunj,

Near modern public school,Chahata Chak,

Bidanasi,Cuttack,Odisha                                                                                      .… Complainant.

 

Vrs.

.                                                                       

1.        M/s. OA INFOTECH,

Kathajodi Road,

Badambadi,Cuttack

 

2.        Coolpad Customer-Care,

A1 & /A2,Tejas Apartment,

Plot No.109/110.Sector-44,

Behind H.P.Petrolpump,Seawood(West),

Navi Mumbai,Maharastra-400706.                                                              … Opp. Parties.

 

 

Present:               Sri Dhruba Charan Barik,President.

Smt. Sarmistha Nath, Member (W).

 

Date of filing:    22.05.18

Date of Order:  26.08.2019

 

For the complainant  :            Mrs. Mirra Ghose,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.P.No.1 & 2 :           None.

 

Smt. Sarmistha Nath,Member(W).

 

                The complainant being a consumer has filed this complaint before this Forum alleging deficiency in service against the O.Ps for Redressal of his grievances U/S-12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986(Act in short) in terms of his prayer made in the complaint  petition.

1. The case stated in brief is that the complainant is a law student of 5 years integrated course.  On 24.06.2017 the complainant purchased a cool pad mobile from online through Amazon India, the online shopping App.  The complainant received the mobile hand set on 30.6.17 and paid Rs.7,499/- towards the price of the set including the delivery charges.  The bill was issued in favour of the complainant giving the specification of the mobile as cool pad note-5 Lite bearing IMEI No.1-91154340213637 and IMEI No.2-91154340413637.  It is stipulated in the bill that the set covers the warranty periods of 1 year whereas the warranty period of other accessories is 6 months.  The copy of the bill annexed as Annexure-1.  Within the warranty period, the set indicated some problem viz spark sound from speaker as well as problem in auto switch off.  The complainant submitted the set before the O.P No.1 the authorized service centre of the O.P No.2 as circulated in their site on 8.3.18 and handed over receipt of the mobile set for repairing.  The set has to be delivered after repair within 15 days of receipt.  The O.P No.1 candidly did not fill up the forms as required.  The copy of the receipt is Annexure-2.

The O.P No.1 did not mention the scheduled date of delivery in Annexure-2.On the basis of the stipulated period of 15 days as mentioned in Annexure-2, the complainant approached the authorized officer for return of the set on 22.3.18.The O.P.1 expressed that it has not yet been corrected and to come after 3 days.The complainant thereafter approached the O.P No.1 on 8 occasions for return of the corrected hand set but O.P No.1 did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant.Lastly on 3.5.18 the complainant went to the office of O.P No.1 with his father and pressed for return of the hand set thereby explaining that he has been deprived of legal enlightenment for the purpose of which the set was purchased.To this the O.P No.1 reacted and misbehaved the complainant publicly demeaning his prestige before his father and public.Even the O.P No.2 did not spare the father of the complainant and abused him with trash words.

Having no alternative, the complainant sent advocate’s notice to the O.Ps on 7.5.2018 through speed post and as per the tracking the O.P No.2 received the notice on 10.5.18 and O.P No.1 received the notice on 11.5.18.In fact 7 days time was given in the notice for return of the set but the O.P ignored the matter.The complainant has sustained mental agony and sufferings due to non-delivery of the handset in time.

The complainant prayed for a direction to the O.Ps to return the mobile set either repairing the same with six months extended warranty or replace with a new one, to pay Rs.40,000/- towards deficiency in service and mental agony and Rs.50,000/- towards compensation.

2. The O.Ps did not participate in the proceeding and as such they were set exparte.
3. We have heard from learned counsel of the complainant and gone through the case record and documents and found that the complainant has neither rectified the defects nor replaced the defective set with a new one or returned the cost of the set.  On consideration of uncontroverted averments made by the complainant on oath together with the enclosures filed by the complainant, it is held that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of O.Ps.  O.Ps are jointly and severally liable.

ORDER

The prayer of the complainant is allowed exparte against O.Ps.  The O.Ps are directed to provide a new mobile set of the same brand and model  or to return the old one after removal of defects in good working condition.  They are further directed to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by the Hon’ble Member in the Open Court on this the 26^th    day of August,2019  under the seal and signature of this Forum.

 

  ( Smt. Sarmistha Nath )

                    Member (W)                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         (Sri D.C.Barik)

                                                                                                             President.