DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JHARSUGUDA
CONSUMER COMPLAINT CASE NO. 85 OF 2016
Ramesh Kumar Soundik ( 34 Years),
S/O: Nandkishore Prasad Soundik,
R/O- AT-Kolkata Pune Road Carriers,
Khinda Chowk, PO: Lapanga, PS: Thelkoloi,
Dist: Sambalpur, Odisha................……..…………..……..………. Complainant.
Versus
- Proprietor Konark Video,
AT- Main Road Jharsuguda,
PO/PS/Dist- Jharsuguda (Odisha).
- Proprietor Audio Video Sambalpur,
AT/PO—Budharaja,
PS/Dist- Sambalpur , Odisha.
- Sunil Mohanty,
Proprietor Maa Santoshi Enterprises,
AT-Dhuturapada Chowk, G.M.College Road,
PO/PS/Dist- Sambalpur, Odisha…………….......................... Opp. Parties.
Counsel for the Parties:-
For the Complainant Shri N.K.Mishra, Adv. & Associates.
For the Opp. Party No.1 Shri D.K.Jain, Adv. & Associates.
For the Opp. Party No. 2 & 3 None ( Ex-Parte).
Date of Order: 24.07.2017
Present
1. Shri S.L. Behera, President.
2. Shri S.K.Ojha, Member.
3. Smt. A. Nanda, Member (W).
Shri S.L. Behera, President: - The complainant’s case in brief is that, he had purchased one mobile handset HTC-728 on dtd.15.02.2016 by paying-₹16,400/- only from O.P.No.1. The complainant found problems in the said mobile hand set after two months of purchase. The complainant informed to the O.P.No.1 where the O.P.No.1 suggested to contact O.P.No.2. The complainant deposited his mobile to O.P.No.2 and get repaired after one month by the O.P.No.2. After two months the said mobile again defected and as per advise of O.P.No.1 the complainant deposited to O.P.No.3. At the time of collection from O.P.No.3 the complainant found that the said mobile was broken the edges of both sides and the mobile was not working. The complainant did not receive his repaired mobile till date from the O.P., hence this case.
After being noticed through this Forum, the O.P.No.1 appeared before this Forum, filed their written statement. The O.P.No.2 & 3 did not appeared and stand ex-parte ultimately. The O.P.No.1 submitted that he is just authorized dealer of mobile Hand set and the manufacturer for the authorized service centre are responsible for any defect on the mobile hand set and he is not the necessary party of this case.
Heard from the parties and on perusal of case record including materials available, it is noted that the complainant has purchased one mobile handset having model HTC-728 from the O.P.No.1 by paying-₹16,400/- on dtd. 15.02.2016. After two months of purchasing the said mobile started switching of. As per advise of O.P.No.1 the complainant reached to the O.P.No.2( Authorised Service Centre) where the O.P.No.2 repaired the same which was again stated defects as earlier. The complainant deposited the mobile to the O.P.No.3 ( New Authorised Service Centre) where the complainant found his said mobile in broken condition. The complainant did not receive his said mobile which was under warranty period from the O.P.No.3 till date. As the mobile is under warranty period, it is the duty of authorized service centre to repair the defected mobile in defect free condition but the O.P.No.3 broken the mobile hand set and not repaired the same. The O.P.No.3 is found to be deficient in his service towards complainant.
Hence the complaint petition is hereby allowed by directing the O.P.No.3 to provide a new defect free mobile hand set of the same brand and of the same price or refund Rs.16,400/- (Rupees sixteen thousand four hundred) only to the complainant towards the price of mobile and also pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand) only towards harassment, mental agony and cost of the case within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the O.P.No.3 shall be liable for interest @ 10% per annum till realization.
Accordingly the case is disposed of.
Order pronounced in the open court today on this the 24th of July, 2017, copy of this order shall be communicated to the parties as per Rule.
I Agree. I Agree.
A.Nanda Member( W) S.K.Ojha,Member S.L.Behera, President
Dictated and corrected by me.
S.L.Behera, President .
