Orissa

Cuttak

CC/102/2017

Rajnarayan Das - Complainant(s)

Versus

OA Infotec - Opp.Party(s)

G S Mohanta

16 Apr 2019

ORDER

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

C.C No.102/2017

Rajnarayan Das,

Res. of Qr. No.1146E,IOCL Township, Paradeep,

Dist:Jagatsinghpur,PIN-754141.                                                  … Complainant.

 

Vrs.

1.        OA INFOTECH,Kathajodi Road,

Badambadi, Cuttack-753012,

(Represented through the Owner/Service Centre In-charge).… Opp. Party.

 

Present:               Sri Dhruba Charan Barik,President.

Smt. Sarmistha Nath, Member (W).

 

Date of filing:    26.08.2017

Date of Order:  16.04.2019

 

For the complainant  :    Sri G.S.Mohanty,Advocate & Associates.

For the O.Ps.                :   Sri R.N.Acharya,Adv. & Assoiciates.

 

Smt. Sarmistha Nath,Member(W).

 

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

1. The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant had purchased a Lenovo Mobile set worth of Rs.13,499/- from Health & Happiness Pvt. Ltd., SND Ware House, Shed No.C1,Door No.4/195, Red Hills,Ambattur Road,Puzhal Village,Chennai,Tamil Nadu-600062.  Lenovo make and obtained the bill through Flip kart having invoice No.FOYOK03017-00027097 on 1.12.2016.  During the warranty period the mobile phone had developed some default in its service as the loaded datas were being deleted.  The complainant contacted to O.P having its Service Centre at Kathajodi Road,Cuttack.  The authorized service centre had received the mobile phone set from the complainant on 11.3.17 for repairing and thereafter on 22.3.17 had called the complainant  to pay Rs.4000/- towards the repairing charges.  Accordingly the complainant paid Rs.4000/- to the O.P.  (Copy of job sheet attached).  The O.P assured the complainant to come after 7 days and to take delivery of the mobile phone.  After 7 days the O.P did not hand over the mobile phone to the complainant and told him to come after 15 days.  The complainant again came after 15 days but the O.P advised him to come after one month to take delivery of the mobile set.  The complainant had come to the service centre of the O.P more than 10 times but the O.P avoided to return the mobile phone to the complainant rather threatened him for dire consequences.

The complainant issued a legal notice on 21.7.17 through his advocate for return of the mobile phone set in good condition and Rs.4000/- taken thereon towards repairing and expenses of Rs.2000/- already incurred by him till that date within 7 days.

The O.P received the noticed but did not respond and on 26.8.17 the complainant had personally gone to the O.P and asked him for return of the mobile phone and Rs.6000/-.The O.P neither returned the mobile phone nor the amount and again misbehaved with him and advised to approach the court or the police.

The complainant had suffered a loss of Rs.19,499/- towards the cost of the mobile phone and servicing charges.So the complainant had prayed to direct the O.P to return the mobile phone, refund Rs.4000/- illegally taken during the period of warranty along with the compensation towards mental torture, traveling expenses and legal expenses, totaling Rs.25,000/- towards the total loss.

2. The O.P though appeared through his advocate but neither filed any written version nor contested the case for which he was set exparte on 17.12.18.
3. We have heard the advocate of the petitioner, gone through the case record in detail and document s filed by the complainant.  It appears from the retail invoice and the job sheet that the complainant purchased the smart mobile phone hand set on payment of Rs.13,499/- on 1.12.16 and it was found defective.  The O.P received the handset and Rs.4000/- from the complainant but neither returned the mobile set after repair nor returned the amount received from the complainant.  The O.P though appeared but did not controvert the averments of the complainant.  So the doctrine of non-traverse is applicable in this case and the action of O.P amounts to unfair trade practice and is liable to pay compensation.

ORDER

The case is allowed exparte against the O.P and the O.P is directed to return the mobile handset and Rs.4000/- received from the complainant, Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and harassment and Rs.10,000/- towards litigation cost to the complainant within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order.

Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by the Hon’ble Member in the Open Court on this the 16^th  day of April,2019  under the seal and signature of this Forum.

 

  ( Smt. Sarmistha Nath )

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

                                                                                                              President.