Orissa

Rayagada

CC/41/2021

Sumai Kumar Nayak - Complainant(s)

Versus

Om Collection, - Opp.Party(s)

Self

23 Aug 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

POST  /  DIST: Rayagada,  STATE:  ODISHA,  Pin No. 765001.

                                                      ******************

C.C.case  No.     41      / 2021.                             Date.       23   . 8. 2021

P R E S E N T .

Sri   Gopal   Krishna   Rath,                                              President.

Smt.Padmalaya  Mishra,.                                                Member

 

 

Sri  Sumai  Kumar  Patnaik,  Po/Dist: Rayagada .      (Odisha). 765  001.

Cell  No. 7991021656.                                                …. Complainant.

Versus.

1.The Manager, Omm Collection, Sarla Junction, Main Road, Rayagada.

2.The Manager, Oppo mobile  India Ltd.,  Sochana Gurgaon Road, Sector-49, Gurgaon, Haryana- 122001.,                                                                                        … Opposite parties.

Counsel for the parties:                                 

For the complainant: - Self..

For the O.Ps  :- Set  exparte.

                                                          J u d g e m e n t.

          The  present disputes arises out of the complaint petition filed by the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps for non refund of  purchase  price  towards    mobile set  which was not functioning within the warranty period.      

That  the complainant  had purchased  a   Mobile set model No.Oppo A5-2020, 4/64    from the O.P No.1 by paying   consideration   a sum of Rs.13,000/- bearing  IMEI No.869232041130518  vide cash memo No.5671 Dt.13.8.2021. The O.Ps. have   sold  the  said set to the complainant providing  one year warranty period.The  above set   found defective  within the warranty  period i.e. Set started trouble  after  four months, automatic switch off and sudden shut down of display system, battery becoming hot and down and became totally useless and defunct. The complainant complained the matter to the  O.Ps. from time to time  over phone  but the O.Ps are turned deaf ear to his request. Inspite of repeated  approach   to the O.Ps for rectification  of the defects but the O.Ps paid deaf ear.   Now the above set is unused.  But  no  action has been taken by the O.Ps till date. Hence this complaint petition  filed by the complainant and prays the District Commission  direct the O.Ps to refund  purchase  price of the above  set and such other relief as the  District  Commission deems fit and proper  for the best interest of justice.

On being noticed  the O.Ps  neither entering in to appear before the District Commission  nor filed their  written version inspite of more than  5 adjournments has been given  to them. Complainant consequently filed his memo and prayer to set exparte of the O.Ps.  Observing lapses of around 7 (Seven) 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  from the complainant set the case  exparte against the O.Ps. The action of the O.Ps  are against the principles of  natural justice as envisaged  in C.P. Act. Hence the O.Ps.   were  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.

          We therefore constrained to  proceed to dispose of the case, on its merit  against the O.Ps

          Heard  arguments from the   complainant..   We perused the complaint petition and the document filed by   both  the   parties.

This District Commission   examined the entire material on record  and given  a thoughtful consideration  to the  arguments  advanced  before us by  the  parties touching the points both on the facts  as well as on  law.

        FINDINGS.

                From the records it reveals that, the complainant has purchased   a   Mobile set model No.Oppo A5-2020, 4/64    from the O.P No.1 by paying   consideration   a sum of Rs.13,000/- bearing  IMEI No.869232041130518  vide cash memo No.5671 Dt.13.8.2021 (copies of the  invoice is available in the file which is marked as Annexure-I). But unfortunately after delivery with in  warranty period the above  set found defective and not functioning. The complainant complained the OPs for necessary repair in turn the OPs  paid deaf  ear.   Hence this C.C.  case filed by the complainant.

.           From the records it is seen that, the complainant has filed Xerox copy of purchase bill which is in the file marked as Annexure-I.  Hence it is abundantly clear that, the complainant has repeatedly approached the OPs  for the defective of above  set with complaints where in the OPs  not heard.

            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 in warranty  period  of purchase. As the OP No.2(Manufacturer)  deliberately lingering to file their written version or any other documents after lapses of above 07 months, and observing the present situation, and nothing adversary to the complainant as adduced by the OP. The District Commission  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 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 commission is inclined to allow the complaint against the O.P  No.2 (Manufacturer).

                                                            O R D E R

            In  resultant the complaint petition  is allowed  on exparte against the O.P No.2(Manufacturer) .

The O.P. No.2 (Manufacturer) is directed to  refund  price  of  mobile set  a sum of Rs.13,000/- (Rupees thirteen thousand )only  besides  Rs.4,000/-  damages towards mental agony  inter alia Rs.1,000/-  towards   litigation expenses.

            The O.P. No. 1(Reseller)  is  ordered to refer the matter to the O.P. No. 2(Manufacturer)   for early compliance of the above order.

            The entire directions shall be carried out with in  30 days from the  date of receipt   of this order.   Copies be served to the parties  free of cost.

Dictated and  corrected by me.   

Pronounced in the open forum on          23 ^th.      day of    September,   2021.

 MEMBER                                                      PR