| Complaint Case No. CC/5/2017 | | ( Date of Filing : 02 Feb 2017 ) |
| | | | 1. Satbir Singh, | | At.Durgagudi Street, | | Malkangiri | | Odisha |
| ...........Complainant(s) | |
| Versus | | 1. M/S. Quality store. | | MAIN ROAD MALKANGIRI. | | Malkangiri | | Odisha | | 2. Authurised Dealer,Gionee Care Jeypore | | Near Main Road,Jeypore | | Koraput | | Odisha | | 3. Managin Director,M/S UD Steel Soutions Private Ltd. | | A/1,Jessore Road,Flat No.G (B)Bhubaneswar, | | Kharda | | Odisha | | 4. Authurised Dealer,Gionee Care Jeypore | | main road ,Jeypore | | Koraput | | Odisha | | 5. Manager United Tele Service Ltd. | | Giripa Main Road,Po.Haltu,Kolkata | | West Bengal | | 6. Managin Director,M/S UD Steel Soutions Private Ltd. | | Plot No.687/2365,Nayapalli Jeydev Vihar,Nr.Skamrakanan Park (Andra Bank) Bhubaneswr. | | Khordha | | Odisha | | 7. M/S. Syntech Tecnology Pvt.Ltd. | | Naer F-2,Block No.B-1 Ground Floor,Mahon Co-Operative Industrial Estate | | New Delhi | | 8. Authorized Dealer, Gionee Care Center | | Padhy Copalex 3rd Floor Main Road,Jeypore | | Koraput | | Odisha | | 9. Manager, United Tele Service Ltd. | | 209 Giripa Main Road, | | Kolkata | | West Bengal | | 10. M/S UD steel PVT. Ltd | | Polt No.687/2365, Nayapalli Jeydev Vihar B.B.S.R. | | Khordha | | Odisha | | 11. M/S. Syntech Tecnology Pvt.Ltd. | | F-2, Block No.B-1 Ground Floor Mohan Co-Operative Industrial Estate | | New Delhi |
| ............Opp.Party(s) |
|
|
| Final Order / Judgement | - Brief fact of the case of the complainant is that he purchased one Gionee mobile handset from O.P.No.1 bearing model no. Gionee F-103, IMEI No.869060022327443 and SIMEI No. 86906022327450 vide invoice no. – 3901 dated 12.04.2016 for consideration of Rs. 11,000/- alongwith warranty certificate. It is alleged that two months after its use, the said mobile handset showed some defects in its functioning and he did not get it’s utility and in the month of May, 2016, he reported the matter to the O.P.No.1 and as per his advise he deposited the said mobile handset with the O.P.No.1, who after 10 days returned the said mobile with a false belief that the mobile was repaired, but after some days, the said mobile showed the previous defect alongwith some additional defects. It is also alleged that on approach to the O.P.No.1 regarding the defects, the O.P.No.1 disclosed that the alleged mobile is having manufacturing defect, thus showing the unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps, he filed this case with a prayer to direct the O.Ps to refund the cost of the mobile handset and to pay Rs. 25,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation and costs of litigation to him.
- On the other hand, though the O.P. No. 1 appeared in this case, but did not choose to file his counter / written version nor also participated in the hearing inspite of several opportunities / adjournments have given to him for his submissions keeping in view of natural justice, as such we have lost opportunities to hear from him.
- The O.P. No. 2, who is the authorized service center of the O.P.No. 4 & 5, though received the notice of this Fora, did not appear in this case, nor he filed his counter / written version nor also participated in the hearing inspite of several opportunities / adjournments have given to him for his submissions keeping in view of natural justice, as such we lost every opportunities to come to know whether the alleged mobile handset is having manufacturing defect, hence, the allegations of complainant against him remained unchallenged.
- The O.P. No. 3 appeared in this case through their Ld. Counsel who filed their counter / written version denying their liability, have contended that as on 30.09.2014 already they have handed over their marketing potential and service sector to the O.P. No. 4 with all of their liability on the day of cause of action and the O.P. No. 4 is the marketer of the O.P. No. 5, who is the manufacturer of the alleged mobile handset, as such showing their no liability, they prayed to dismiss the case against them.
- The O.P. No. 4 & 5, who are the marketer and manufacturer of the alleged mobile handset, through received the notice from the Fora, did not choose to appear in this case, nor they have filed their counter / written version nor participated in the hearing also, inspite of repeated adjournments were given to them keeping in view of natural justice, as such we lost all opportunities to hear from them, hence the allegations of complainant remained unchallenged from their side.
- Complainant filed certain documents to prove his case. The O.P. No. 3 has filed their certain documents in support of their contentions. Except complainant and O.P.No. 3, no other parties to the present litigation have any documents. Heard from the complainant as well as the Ld. Counsel for for O.P. No. 3 at length and perused the case records and material documents available therein.
- In this case, it is an evidentiary fact that the complainant had purchased the alleged Gionee mobile handset from O.P.No.1 bearing model no. Gionee F-103, IMEI No.869060022327443 and SIMEI No. 86906022327450 vide invoice no. – 3901 dated 12.04.2016 for consideration of Rs. 11,000/- alongwith warranty certificate. Complainant has filed document to that effect. The allegations of complainant is that two months after its use, the said mobile handset showed some defects in its functioning and he did not get its utility, for which, in the month of May, 2016, he reported the matter to the O.P.No.1 and as per his advise he deposited the said mobile handset with the O.P.No.1, who after 10 days returned the said mobile with a false belief that the mobile was repaired, but after some days, the said mobile showed the previous defect alongwith some additional defects. Since the O.P. No.1 did not appear throughout the proceeding, we lost opportunities to come to a conclusion that whether the alleged mobile handset was properly repaired through the expert of the O.P.No.5 i.e. O.P. No. 2 ? As such, the allegations made by the Complainant became unrebuttal from the side of the O.P. No. 1.
- Further, at the time of hearing, the Ld. Counsel for the O.P.No. 3 has produced certain documents to prove their contentions stating that as on 30.09.2014, they have already left the business of GIONEE mobile in the State of Odisha and handed over all of their charges including Office Items and other liabilities to the O.P. No. 4 i.e. M/s UD Steel Solutions Pvt. Ltd. and said M/s UD Steel Solutions Pvt. Ltd. is the marketer of the GIONEE mobile handset manufactured by O.P. No. 5 i.e. M/s Syntech Technology Pvt. Ltd., as such no liability can be conferred upon them. Since the O.P. No. 4 & 5 are absent throughout the proceeding, as such the contentions of the O.P. No. 3 remained unchallenged being established from the documentary evidence produced by them.
- Further, at the time of hearing, except O.P.No. 3, all the Opp. Parties are absent on repeated calls, for which we lost every opportunities to come to know that whether the submissions of the complainant contains any truth or not. However, the O.P.No. 3 has admitted in their counter that the alleged mobile handset in dispute was manufactured by O.P.No.5 which was marketed by O.P. No. 4 and sold to the Complainant through O.P. No. 1. The allegations of the Complainant regarding the fact that after 10 days of its repair, it showed the previous defects alongwith some additional defects, was well corroborated by him at the time of hearing. No contestant O.Ps are there either to challenge the versions of complainant or to make it contradict. As such the allegations of complainant became unrebuttal from the side of the O.P. No. 1, 2, 4 & 5. In this connection, we have fortified with the verdicts of Hon’ble National Commission in the case between Urban Improvement Trust, Bikaner, Rajasthan Vrs Babu Lal and Another, wherein it is held that “Unrebutted averments shall be deemed to be admitted.”
- Further, the defects were occurred during the warranty period though the mobile handset was used for 2 months only, which was repaired by the O.P. No. 1 through the O.P.No.2, but the same defects were persisted even after of its repair was made, as such the Complainant prayed for refund of the cost of the mobile from the O.Ps. We feel, the alleged mobile handset must have repaired by the O.P. No. 1 through the local technicians as per his own choice but not by any authorized technicians of O.P.No.5, for which the alleged mobile handset reiterated its previous defects alongwith some additional defects and in our view, such type of practice adopted by the O.P. No. 1 is clearly establishes the principle of deficiency in service.
- We feel, had the O.P. No.1 rectified the alleged defects occurred in the mobile handset through one authorized service center set up by the O.P.No.5 i.e. O.P.No.2, then the defects of the mobile handset could have properly rectified, so that the Complainant would not have suffered. Further it was the duty of O.P.No.1 on the day when he received the alleged mobile handset from the complainant, immediately he was supposed to intimate the O.P.No. 4 & 5 for providing better service to their genuine customer. Further it is seen that no authorized service center of O.P. No. 5 is available in the present locality, as such the customers who purchases the product of the O.P.No. 5 from the O.P. No. 1 must have depended on him to avail proper service. But without providing better service, as per the norms of the company, the O.P.No. 1 indulged himself in corrupt practice of selling the products and carry out the defects as per his own choice by the help of unauthorized technicians, which is not permissible in the eye of law.
- Further lying the said mobile handset for a long period without any repair and use, in our view, is of no use.
- Hence considering the above discussions, we feel, the Complainant deserves to be compensated with adequate compensation and costs for not providing better service by the O.Ps No. 1, 2, 4 & 5 to their valuable customer like the Complainant, as the Complainant must have suffered some mental agony and physical harassment, for which he was compelled to file this case incurring some expenses. Considering his sufferings, we feel a sum of Rs. 3,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 2,000/- towards cost of litigation will meet the ends of justice. Hence this order.
ORDER
The complaint petition is allowed in part and the O.P. No.5, being the manufacturer of the alleged mobile handset is herewith directed to refund the cost of the alleged mobile handset i.e. Rs. 11,000/- to the complainant and also directed to pay Rs. 3,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 2,000/- for costs of litigation to the Complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which, the cost of mobile shall carry interest @ 10% p.a. till payment.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 26th day of July, 2018.
Issue free copy to the parties concerned.
| |
