Orissa

Rayagada

CC/15/4

Susanta Kumar Coudo,S/o: Abhimanyu Goudo, - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s W.S. Retail Services Pvt., Ltd, Bangalor and others - Opp.Party(s)

Self

17 Jan 2017

ORDER

            DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA

                                                  C.C. Case  No.04/ 2015.

P R E S E N T .

Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash, LL.B,                             President.

Sri Gadadhara Sahu, B.Sc.                                    Member

            Susanta Kumar Goudo, S/o Abhimanyu Goudo, C/o Ananta Padhi,R.K.Nagar,           Rayagada.                                                                                                   ………Complainant

                                                            Vrsus

1. M/s W.S.Retail Services(P) Ltd.,No.42/1 and 43 ,Kachera-Kanahalli, Jadigena Hall, Hobli- Hoskote Taluk,Bangalore,Kartnataka,560067.
2. Smart Services,(Telecom Divn),SCR 151E(666) Bapuji Nagar,Bhubaneswar,751009.
3. The Manager,Motorola Solutions India Pvt. Ltd.,Motorola aEdcellence Centre,415/2,Mehraula Gurgaon Road,?Sector-14,Gurgaon-122001(Haryana).
4.  

                                                                                          ….Opp.Parties

Counsel for the parties:

For the complainant: In Person

For the O.P 1 & 2 : Self

For the OP 3: Set Exparte

                                                                 JUDGMENT

                        The facts of the complaint  in brief is that,  the complainant has purchased  one Moto E  mobile  from O.p. No.1 with a  consideration of Rs6,999/- on 05.06.2014   with one year warranty and during its warranty period the  mobile set  was  found defective  and     for which  the complainant informed to the O.p. No.2      but the O.Ps failed to repair the mobile set    and hence finding no other option  the complainant  approach this forum and prayed to direct the O.ps  to  replace the mobile set or   refund the cost of the mobile set  and  claim compensation for mental agony   and cost of  litigation  and such other relief as the forum deem fit and proper .Hence, this complaint.

                                                     

                                 On being noticed, the Op 1 appeared and filed written version inter alia denying the petition allegations on all its material particulars. The Op 2  neither  appeared nor filed any written version and as  the O.p  2  was set exparte. It is submitted by the OP 1 that  the complainant  has  purchased  Moto E mobile phone for Rs.6,999/-  and the same was delivered at  the requested address. The OP 1 is not aware of the transaction between the complainant  and the OP 2.  The OP 2 is not the authorised service centre of the OP 1.  The OP 1 has no control over the OP 2 .The OP 1 is a mere seller  and this OP 1 neither has the knowledge nor the facility to ascertain  if the alleged defect in the product is due to inherent manufacturing flaws or customer abuse. Under such circumstances, this OP 1 is not in a position to resolved the grievance of the complainant. The product was deliver3d to the complainant in a sealed box condition  as it was received from the manufacturer and this OP 1 has no control over the manufacture  or the OP 2 and hence this OP 1 can not beheld liable for the alleged misconduct of the OP 2. Hence, prayed to dismiss the complaint against the Op 1 with cost.

                        Heard and perused the complaint petition and documents filed by the complainant and we accept the grievance of the complainant. The Complainant  argued that the O.ps have sold a defective  mobile set  to the complainant and claimed that the O.ps caused deficiency in service and deprived of the complainant of enjoyment of the mobile set  since the date of  its purchase  which caused mental agony and harassment to the complainant.

Now we have to see whether there was any negligence of the Ops  in providing  after sale service  to the complainant as alleged ?

 

We perused the documents filed by the complainant.  Since the mobile set found defective after its purchase    and   the complainant  informed the Ops regarding the defect but the  Ops   failed to remove  the defect . At this stage we hold that  if the mobile set  require  service within its warranty period  and if the OP failed to remove the defects, then it can be presumed that it is defective one and if the defective mobile set  is sold to the complainant , the complainant is entitled to get refund of the price of the article or to replace a new  one or  remove the defects  and also the   complainant is entitled  and has a right to claim compensation and cost to meet his mental agony , financial loss.  In the instant case  as it is appears that the mobile set  which was purchased by the complainant had developed  defects  within  its warranty period and the O.ps were unable to restore its normal functioning during the warranty period. It appears that the complainant invested  a substantial amount and purchased the mobile set  with an expectation to have the effective benefit of use of the article. In this case, the complainant was deprived of getting beneficial use of the article and deprived of using the mobile set  for such  and the defecates were not removed by the O.ps who  know the defects from time to time from the complainant.

Hence, in our view the complainant has right to claim compensation to meet  his mental agony, financial loss. Hence,  it is ordered.

                                                ORDER

                        The  opposite party No. 2 & 3  are directed to replace  the  mobile set  and give fresh warranty   within one month from the date of receipt of this order and  all the Ops are to pay the cost and compensation of Rs.1500/- to the complainant. Failing which the O.Ps are liable to refund the purchased amount of the mobile.

                        Pronounced in open forum today on this 30^th day of November,2016 under the seal and signature of this forum.

                         A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements , be forwarded to the parties    free of charge.

 

 

                       Member                                                                        President

Documents relied upon:

By the complainant:

1. Copy of   Money Receipts.
2. Copy of job sheet
3. By the Opp.Party: Nil                                                                          President