Orissa

Rayagada

CC/171/2016

Sri G.Nagarjuna - Complainant(s)

Versus

My Zone Retail, - Opp.Party(s)

Self

11 Jan 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA,

STATE:  ODISHA.

C.C. Case  No. 171/ 2016.                                        Date.       11.     01   . 2018.

P R E S E N T .

Dr. Aswini  Kumar Mohapatra,                                                   President

Sri GadadharaSahu,                                                                        Member.

Smt.PadmalayaMishra,.                                                                                 Member

SriG.Nagarjuna, S/O: Late G. Adinarayana, Main Road, Po: K.Singhpur,       Dist.Rayagada, State:  Odisha.                                                                                           …….Complainant

Vrs.

1. The Manager, My Zone, Authorised retail of Gionee, Po/Dist:  Rayagada, Odisha.

2.The Manager, Syntech Technology India Pvt.  Ltd., F-2, Block No. B-1, Ground Floor, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi,  110044.

3.The Manager, U.D. Steel  solutions Pvt. Ltd., Jessore Road, Flat No.9(B), Ground Floor, Kolkatta- 700089.                                               ……...Opp.Parties

For the Complainant:- Self.

For the O.P:- Set exparte.

JUDGMENT

                The  present dispute emerges out of the complaint petition filed by the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps for non refund of the the sale price  of  defective  mobile set Gionee  within warranty period.  The brief facts of the case  has summarised here under.

 

          That the complainant had purchased  one mobile phone manufactured  and marketed by the O.Ps No.2 & 3  through O.P. No.1  the  authorized  dealer on Dt. 06.08.2015 Gionee  h3   with IMEI No. 866924027004070 and IMEI No.866924028004079 for a total consideration  amount of Rs.12,499/-with one year warranty having the service facility provided at Rayagada itself.  The mobile set purchased by the complainant is a manufacturing defective  one and suppressing the above fact  by the O.P. No. 2 & 3 marketed  the product through the O.P. No.1.  It has provided with touch screen facility but it is not working properly with  hanging problem. So also the battery  is discharging  automatically  and giving  heat to the product and also to the charger. The matter was referred to the O.P.  No.1 two times and  he was not able to remove the said   problem stating that it is having  inherent  manufacturing  defect in it and only the O.Ps 2 and  3 can do any thing. Ultimately the said set is returned without removing   the defects and as such  the complainant has approached  for the following   reliefs before  this forum .  During  the warranty period the set has given   constant trouble and the  service provider  is unable to remove  the said problem and as such by paying the  price   of the mobile Rs.12,499/- the complainant has purchased mental agony and trouble and as such the above sales practice by the O.P. No. 1,  & 3 are deemed to be unfair.  In view of the  constant problem for the defective mobile the complainant prays the forum direct the O.Ps  to refund the cost of the mobile set Rs.12,499/-with  interest  and for causing the mental agony and financial loss award a cost of Rs.5,000/- and also award  cost of the litigation  and  such other relief  as the hon’ble forum deems fit and proper for the best  interest of justice.

          In the instant case the copy of the complaint was referred to the O.Ps  directing to given  written version of the case.  After service of notice the O.Ps failed to avail of the opportunity for filing  of the version of the case.  On number of dates they failed  to appear  on the version dates fixed. As the version of the case was not filed by the O.Ps   within the time frame given, we have no alternative  but to resort to Section -13(2)(b)(ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986  and  O.Ps were   set  exparte.

                During the exparte  hearing the complainant examined himself and proved the payment  of the  money  to the O.Ps. The complainant has also produced  the service job sheet including  warranty card relating to the above case. The complainant also argued  due to non repair of the above set the complainant suffered a lot of financial trouble  and mental agony. The complainant prays the forum as the  O.Ps  not heard any  grievance of the complainant till date   so the  O.Ps  be  directed to refund  purchase price   along with  bank interest.

In  the absence  written  version  from the side  of the O.Ps. it is  presumed that the allegations  levelled against   the  O.Ps. deemed  to have  been  proved.    The  complainant   had  paid  the  amount   for the good service  as per  warranty  card  which  intended      with the O.P and the  said payment is  made for the consideration for the said service.  When the O.Ps  have failed to  give such service  as per warranty card  for   which  the O.Ps  have   received   the  amount.   It is  deemed that the  O.Ps   were   callous to the allegations  and it amounts  to deficiency  of service.

In the  present case  the O.Ps . are jointly and several liable.

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

ORDER.

                In  resultant  the complaint petition is allowed  in part on exparte against the O.Ps.

               

                The O.Ps  are  ordered to take back their product  and  refund price of the Gionee mobile  set   a sum of Rs. 12,499/- inter alia  to pay Rs.1,000.00  towards litigation  expenses to the complainant .

                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 free of cost..

Dictated and corrected by me

Pronounced  on  this            11 th.     day of        January,  2018.

MEMBER.                                            MEMBER.                                                        PRESIDENT.