Orissa

Rayagada

CC/76/2017

Sri P.K. Ganesh - Complainant(s)

Versus

OM Collection Whole Sale - Opp.Party(s)

Self

08 Mar 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA,

STATE:  ODISHA.

C.C. Case  No. 76 / 2017.                                         Date.    08  . 03 . 2018.

P R E S E N T .

Dr. Aswini  Kumar Mohapatra,                          President

Sri Gadadhara Sahu,                                                                       Member.

Smt.Padmalaya Mishra,.                                                                Member

 

Sri P.K.Ganesh, S/O: P.K.Nair, Sai Laxmi Nagar, Near Shiva Temple, Po/Dist: Rayagada, State:Odisha, pin No. 765 001 Cell No. 90409-93290.                                                                                                                                          …. Complainant.

Versus.

1.The Manager, Om  Collection, Sarla Junction, Main Road, Rayagada(Odisha).

2.The  Manager, S.V.care, HCL authorised service centre,46-21-4, Ist. Floor, Near big bazar, Besides Dwaraka inn, Mandavari Street,  Dondaparthi, Vishakhapatnam,  530016, State: Andhrapradesh.

3.The  Manager, Videocon Industries Ltd., 14Km. Stone Aurangabad Palthan Road, Chitegaon, Aurangabad- 431105,State:Moharastra.

4.The Care Manager,   A-I, A-2, Tejas Appartment, Plot No. 109 /110, Sector-44, Behind H.P. Petrol Pump,  Sea wood(West), Navi  Mumbai- 400 706. …                                                                                                                     Opposite parties.

For the complainant: - Self.

For the O.Ps  :- Set exparte.

                                                          J u d g e m e n t.

          The  present disputes emerges out of the grievance raised in the  complaint petition filed by the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps for non  refund of  price  towards   mobile set.  The brief facts of the case  has summarised here under.

            That the  complainant  had purchased a  Coolpad cool-II  mobile  bearing IMEI No. 862003031524581  from the O.P. No.1 on Dt. 02.5.2017 by paying cash payment of Rs.11,999/- having bill No. 4535 Dt.2.5.2017  with one year warranty.  But unfortunately within 15 days  of the purchase the said set  was damaged and functioning properly. Then the complainant approached  the O.P. No.2  for repair and paid a sum of Rs.4,000/- in advance vide invoice No. 988 Dt.17.5.2017 and left the damaged set with the O.P. No.2.  The O.P. No.2  returned the set to the complainant on receiving  the balance amount Rs.500/- saying that the set has got  repair.  But  when the complainant return back to the Rayagada  he found that the display glass was broken. Then he contacted to the O.P. No.2 over phone  in turn the O.P.  No. 2  refused   to do  any needful repair to the set.  In spite of repeated contact with the O.P. No. 2 from pillar to post but the O.P. No.2 paid deaf ear. Hence this case. The complainant prays the forum direct the  O.Ps to refund price of the mobile set  inter alia  repair charges a sum of Rs. 4,500/- with  monetary compensation and     such other relief as the hon’ble  forum deems fit and proper for the best interest of justice.  

On being noticed the O.Ps. neither entering in to appear before the forum nor filed their  written version inspite of more than  05 adjournments has been given  to them. Complainant consequently filed his memo and prayer to set exparte of the O.Ps.  Observing lapses of around 10 months  for which the objectives  of the legislature of the C.P. Act going to be destroyed to the prejudice of the interest of the complainant.  Hence after hearing  the  counsel for the complainant set the case  exparte against the O.Ps. The action of the O.Ps is against the principles of  natural justice as envisaged  under section  13(2) (b)(ii) of the Act. Hence the O.P. set exparte  as the statutory period  for filing of  written version was over to close the case with in the time frame permitted by the C.P. Act.

          The complainant has been heard at length & perused the records.

                From the records it reveals that, the complainant has purchased a mobile set  from the O.P.No.1 by paying a sum of Rs.11,999/- with cash Memo   vide No.4535 Dtd.02.5.2017. With in    15 days the above  set found defective and not functioning. The complainant complaint the OP.1 for necessary repair in turn the OP.1 receive the above set and sent it to the  O.P No.2.  After 15 days they returned the set after repair  on receiving Rs.4,500/-.  Again the complainant handed over it to the OP.2 regarding further  defect. in turn the O.P.  No. 2  refused   to do  any needful repair to the  above set.  The complainant further approached the OPs for return the money which he spent but for no use.

.               From the records it is seen that, the complainant has filed Xerox copy of purchase bill, Service job sheet  Dt. 17.5.2017.  Hence it is abundantly clear that, the complainant has repeatedly approached the OP.no.2 (Service Station) for the defective of above  set with complaints.

                On examining the whole transactions, it is pertinent to mention here that, there is One year valid warranty for the alleged above set and the defect arose with 15 days of purchase. As the OPs deliberately lingering to file their written version or any other documents after lapses of above 10 months, and observing the present situation, and nothing adversary to the complainant as adduced by the OP, the forum relying on the version of the complainant is of the view that, the alleged  set has inherent defect and there is vivid deficiency in service by the OPs declining to redress the grievances of his consumers i.e.  the  present complainant, hence the complainant is entitled to get the price of the said set or a new same set instead of the defective one along with such substantial compensation for all such harassment having been impounded with mental agony and deprivation of the use for the same  for long time  and so also the cost of litigation. We found there is deficiency in service by the OPs and the complainant is entitled to get relief.

                On appreciation of the evidences adduce before it, the forum is inclined to allow the complaint against the OPs.

                                                                                O R D E R

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

                The O.P. No. 3 & 4  are directed to return back the defective product from the complainant  by paying the price of the  above mobile set  a sum of Rs. 11,999/-   plus repair charges a sum of Rs. 4,500/- Grand total Rs.16,499/-  besides  to pay an amount of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand) towards   mental agony   and litigation cost to the complainant.

                The O.P. No.1 & 2 are ordered to refer the matter to the O.P. No.3 & 4 for early compliance.

                The entire directions shall be carried out with in 30 days from the  date of receipt   of this order.

Service the copies of the order to the parties free of cost.

Dictated and corrected by me

Pronounced on this                  8 ^th.  day of   March, 2018.

 

 

MEMBER                                                                              MEMBER                                                    PRESIDENT