Orissa

Cuttak

CC/22/2015

Mrinal Datta - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S Shree Mobile - Opp.Party(s)

31 Dec 2015

ORDER

OFFICE OF DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESAL FORUM:CUTTACK.

                                                            C.C. Case No.22/2015

Mrinal Datta,

Res. at Opp. Telephone Exchange,

Bajrakabati Road,Cuttack.                                                        .… Complainant.

 

                                                                Vrs.

1. M/s. Shree Mobile,

OSIYA Tower, Haripur Road,

                              Dolamundai,Cuttack

 

2. Panasonic Customer Care Service,

At:D-172,Okhala Industrial Area,

Phase-1,New Delhi-110020.

….Opp. Parties.

 

Present:               Sri Bijay Kumar  Das,President.

 Sri Pitabash Mohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:  26.02.2015

Date of Order: 31.12.2015

 

MR. PITABAS MOHANTY,MEMBER.

 

                This is a dispute wherein the petitioner not only alleges deficiency in service but also unfair trade practice on the part of the O.Ps.

1. The facts shortly as per complaint petition are that the petitioner purchased a mobile set on 08.02.2015 from the O.P No.1 paying Rs.7100/- towards the cost of the mobile set.  The warranty of the mobile set is one year from the date of purchase.  As against such warranty it is alleged by the petitioner that just after purchase it is found that there are some problems with the hand set.  According to petitioner the battery of the handset did not charge in full although plugged in overnight.  The devise charge is only about 80%.  It was over hearting not only when plugged in put also while making calls.  The battery backup suddenly dropped to zero without any predication.  The defects not only was brought to the notice of O.P No.1 but also O.P No.2 either to replace or refund the cost of the mobile set but no action has yet been taken by O.P No.1 & O.P No.2 either to replace the mobile set or refund the cost of the mobile set.  In addition to it further it is also alleged by the petitioner that though he has paid Rs.7100/- towards the cost of the mobile set but the O.P No.1 has issued invoice of the alleged mobile set for Rs.6,800/-.  Due to selling of the above cited defective mobile set the petitioner not only facing trouble while he was undergoing the treatment at Appolo Hospital but also unable to contact his care taker.  Accordingly the petitioner finding no other way has filed the present dispute against the O.Ps with the prayer to award compensation of Rs.50,000/- as well as direct the O.Ps to refund the cost of the defective mobile set. 
2. In the present case though several opportunities have been given to the O.Ps but the O.Ps 1 & 2 neither appeared nor contested the dispute.  In such situation we are constrained to accept the statement of the complaint petition of the petitioner as uncontroverted in view of the observation of appellant forums stated below:-

1. 2003-CLT-Vol-96-P-15-Para-4 C.D.No.37/2002

“Absence of written version commission is bound to accept the uncontroverted statement made in the complaint “.

2. 2013(1) CPR-507-N.C.

“In case written version not filed after several opportunities it has no defence on merit”.

Owing to the above narrated observation as well as facts and circumstances of the case the blame is to be placed at the door of O.P No.1 and 2.  As such to meet the ends of justice we allow the dispute against O.Ps 1 & 2 in view of the observation of Hon’ble State Commission reported in 2005-CTJ-896-Chandigarh-Raj Hans Studio Vrs. Krishnalal and another wherein it is held that:

        “Defects-mobile hand set Consumer Protection Act 1986 Section-2(i)(f)-Dist. Forum held both the dealer and the manufacturer.  Conjointly liable and directed for making refund of the price charged from the complainant ………….appeal dismissed in limini.”

 

                                                                        ORDER

        The dispute is allowed against O.Ps 1 & 2.  The O.P No.1 is directed to refund the cost of the mobile set amounting to Rs.7100/- to the petitioner.  The O.P No.1 is also directed to pay compensation of Rs.5000/-(including the cost of litigation) to the petitioner and out of the Rs.5,000/- compensation of 50% will be recovered from O.P No.2 by O.P No.1.  The order shall be complied within one month after receipt of this order, failing which the petitioner is at liberty to take shelter of this Fora for realization of the above awarded amount.

Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by the Hon’ble Member in the open Court on this the 31^st day of June, 2015 under the seal and signature of this Forum.

 

                                                                                                                                                   (Sri Pitabasa Mohanty)

                                                                                                                                                       Member

 

                                         (Sri B.K.Das )

                                                                                                                                                           President.