Orissa

Rayagada

CC/208/2016

Sri T.Gurunnath - Complainant(s)

Versus

OM Collection, Rayagada - Opp.Party(s)

Self

06 Oct 2016

ORDER

Heading1
Heading2
 
Complaint Case No. CC/208/2016
 
1. Sri T.Gurunnath
Housing Board, Rayagada
Rayagada
Odisha
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. OM Collection, Rayagada
Rayagada
Rayagada
Odisha
2. The Manager LAVA international Ltd.,
Noida
uttar Pradesh
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Pradeep Kumar Dash PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Gadadhar Sahu MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:
For the Opp. Party:
Dated : 06 Oct 2016
Final Order / Judgement

        DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA

                                                  C.C. Case  No.208/ 2016.

P R E S E N T .

Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash, LL.B,                             President.

Sri Gadadhar Sahu, B.Sc.,                                     Member

Sri T.Gurunnath, S/o T.Venketa Ramana, Housing Board Colony, Near Hero Servicing Centre,(Back side)  Po/Ps/Dist. Rayagada.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          ………Complainant

                                                            Vrs.

  1. M/s Om Collections,  Sarala Junction, Main Road, Rayagada,765001.
  2. The Manager, Marketing and Sales and Customer Care Lava International  Ltd., 56,Sector 64 ,Noida 201301,U.P.
  3. Sreevani Traders, New Colony, Rayagada.

                                                                                                            ……………...Opp.Parties

Counsel for the parties:

For the complainant: In Person

For the O.Ps: Self

 

                                                            JUDGMENT

                        The facts of the complaint  in brief is that,  the complainant has purchased  one  Lava  Mobile from O.p. No.1 with a  consideration of Rs10,600/- on 30.12.2015 vide  Cash Memo No.553 dt.30.12.20 15 having warranty of one year    but   the  mobile set  started giving  trouble  during its warranty period  and it was given for service to the authaorised service centre and the service centre stated that it is  having inherent manufacturing defect and advised to ask to OP 1 to replace the same  but the OP 1 refused to take back the same  or to pay back the amount  and stated that the OP 2 can finalize the matter.  Hence   the complainant   finding no other option approached this forum for relief  and prayed  to direct the O.Ps  to    refund the  cost of the mobile  i.e. Rs.10,600/- and award  compensation and cost of litigation .Hence, this complaint.

                         On being noticed,  the O.ps appeared and filed a reply stating therein that  they have discussed with the complainant about  the case and the complainant has not handed over the handset  and the company is ready to rectify the defect  of the mobile  and if it is not resolved then the company is ready to replace with a new one and if the complainant is not ready to receive the handset then the company is ready to pay the amount of his purchased.

                                                                        FINDINGS

                        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  servicing since  the date of its purchase, 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 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 parties  are directed to replace the mobile set  with a new one and extend the warranty for six months   and pay cost of Rs.800/-  within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the O.Ps are liable to pay  interest  @  12%  p.a. on the above awarded amount till  the date of payment. Accordingly the complaint is allowed.

                        Pronounced in open forum today on this  4th day October, 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. Xerox copy of  Cash  memo
  2. Xerox copy of  details of mobile set.

By the Opp.Party: Nil

 

                                                                                                           President

 

 

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Pradeep Kumar Dash]
PRESIDENT
 
[HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Gadadhar Sahu]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.