Orissa

Rayagada

CC/136/2017

The Gangadhar Padhi - Complainant(s)

Versus

Oppo Mobiles India Pvt Ltd,., - Opp.Party(s)

Self

19 Oct 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

POST  /  DIST: Rayagada,  STATE:  ODISHA,12.10  Pin No. 765001.

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

C.C.case  No.       136         / 2017.                     Date. 19  .10. 2019

P R E S E N T .

Dr. Aswini  Kumar  Mohapatra,                                     President

Sri  Gadadhara  Sahu,                                                       Member.

Smt.Padmalaya  Mishra,.                                                Member

 

Sri Gangadhar Padhi, S/O: Somanath Padhi, Raniguda Farm, Po/ Dist:Rayagada(Odisha).                                                   …..Complainant.

Versus.

1.The  Manager, Oppo Mobiles India Pvt. Ltd., Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-1,New Delhi- 110020, India.

2.The Manager, Bankeswari Maa Cell Point, Near old  Gate, Station Road, Po/Dist:Rayagada(Odisha).                                                …Opposite parties.           

Counsel for the parties:                                 

For the complainant: - Self..

.For the O.Ps:-  Sri R.K.Senapati, Advocate,Rayagada.

 

                                                JUDGEMENT.

The  crux of the case is that  the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps    for  non refund of mobile price a sum of Rs.9,990/- which was found defective during warranty period   for which  the complainant  sought for redressal of the grievances raised by the complainant.

Upon  Notice, the O.Ps    put in their appearance and filed  written version through their learned counsel in which  they refuting allegation made against them.  The O.Ps    taking one and another pleas in the written version   sought to dismiss the complaint as it is not maintainable  under the C.P. Act, 1986. The facts which are not specifically admitted may be treated  as denial of the O.Ps.   Hence the O.Ps   prays the forum to dismiss the case against  them  to meet the ends of justice.

          Heard arguments from the learned counsel for the    O.P    and from the complainant.    Perused the record, documents, written version  filed by the parties. 

     This forum  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.

Undisputedly  the complainant  had purchased one mobile handset bearing  model No. OPPO A33F- (OPPO Neo-7) on Dt. 18.11.2016 from the O.P. No.2  on payment of consideration a sum of Rs.9,990/- (copies of the  Cash bill is in the file which is marked as Annexure-I).  In the  above mobile set  IMEI  was recorded  in the cash bill as 86122034300738.

The  main grievance of the complainant  was that after using some days the said set was not  worked and shows software problem, standby of the battery is very low. Further the set was not working properly  while using   internet and hangs  for long time and other hardware problem for which the complainant  immediately complained  the matter to the O.P. No.2 .  From time to time the O.P. No.2 had received the set but returned  on assuring  that the set  was repairing  by sending  it to the authorized Service Centre of the O.P. No.1 and  is in proper condition.  The complainant alleged  that inspite of repair and upgradation of software all problems are sought out but the same problem continued  in the above set. Hence this C.C. case.

The  O.Ps in their written version contended that  no material evidence has been placed on record by  the complainant  which says that the said mobile handset was having some inherent defect. The complainant has also not furnished any document  which establishes  the fact that the complainant has made no. of attempts to rectify the above set in question  was having some defect. In the absence of any strong proof, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed. Further the O.Ps have contended that had there been any inherent defect  the complainant  would have  surely  contacted  O.P’s right in the beginning. But  herein  the  present  case  the complainant  raised issue after  satisfactorily using the mobile  hand set for 11 months and thereafter, lodged the complaint  and wrongly alleged that the mobile set has problems and other defects.

It is admitted fact that the complainant has purchased the above  product namely OPPO A33F- (OPPO Neo-7)   from the O.P. No.2(Retailer) after being allured by the advertisement of Naaptol Shopping Festival, 2016. But no doubt it is a unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite party because the Opposite Party has not acted as per their advertisement. It is the case of the complainant that with in  warranty period , the product was found defective and after complaint the Opposite Party failed to rectify the same. It is not denied by the opposite parties that the defect in the product is not within the warranty period and when the defect is found within the warranty period the opposite party is to give service or replace the same which they assured to the customer. Since the product found defective after its purchase and the complainant informed the Opposite Party again and again regarding the defect but the Opposite Parties  failed to rectify or replace the defect . At  this stage we hold that if the product in question found defective with in warranty period, then it can be presumed that it is defective one and if a defective product 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  under section-14 of the C.P. Act. In the instant case as  it is appears that the electronic product which was purchased by the complainant had developed defects and the Opposite Party was unable to restore its normal functioning during the warranty period. It appears that the complainant invested a substantial amount and purchased the electronic product 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 same and the defects were not removed by the Opposite Party who knew the defects from time to time from the complainant.

Word ‘defect’ as defined under Section 2(1)(f) of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986 means any fault, imperfection or shortcoming in the quality, quantity, potency, purity or  standard which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or under any contract, express or implied or as is claimed by the trader in any manner whatsoever in relation to any goods.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is concluded that the opposite parties are deficient in their service .Sec.2(1)(g) ‘ Deficiency in Service means “ any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality , nature and manner of performance which is  required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service”. With in warranty period, the electronic product given problem for which complainant made complaint to the OP but  subsequently the OP failed to replace the same ,which amount to deficiency in service on the part of the OP. That it is also a fact that the OP giving alluring and misleading advertisement like giving lottery benefit is drawing customer which  tends to unfair trade practice. Therefore, the O.P  No.1(Manufacturer)   is liable to refund the amount of the product  and also liable to pay compensation for mental agony along with cost of litigation for filing this dispute.. Hence, we allowed the complaint partly and dispose of the matter with the following directions.

In view of the above discussion relating to the above case and  In Res-IPSA-Loquiture  as well as  in the light of the settled legal position  discussed  as above referring citations the plea of the  O.Ps to avoid the claim  which is Aliane Juris.  Hence  we allow the above complaint petition  in part.

 

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

                                                                                                O R D E R

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

The O.P  No.1 (Manufacturer)  is  directed to return back the defective product from the complainant  by paying the price of the OPPO A33F- (OPPO Neo-7) a sum of Rs.9,990/- . Parties are left  to bear their own cost.

The O.P  No. 2  is  ordered   to  refer the matter to the O.P. No.1 (Manufacturer for  early compliance of the above order  and co-operate the complainant for better co-ordination with the O.P.  No. 1 (Manufacturer) to provide satisfying service  for which he is entitled.

The entire directions shall be carried out with in 45 days from the  date of receipt   of   this order.

                Dictated and  corrected  by me.

                Pronounced in the open forum on       19^th.       day    of   October , 2019.

 

MEMBER                                                                                 MEMBER                                                 PRESIDENT