Orissa

Rayagada

CC/186/2017

Biswajit Pattnayak - Complainant(s)

Versus

Proprietor Sanhay Mobile Care - Opp.Party(s)

Self

20 Nov 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

                                      PO/DIST; RAYAGADA,   STATE:  ODISHA ,Pin No. 765001

C.C. Case  No.   186 / 2017.                                     Date.    20        11   . 2018.

P R E S E N T .

Dr. Aswini  Kumar Mohapatra,                                                   President

Sri GadadharaSahu,                                                                        Member.

Smt.Padmalaya  Mishra,.                                                              Member

 

Sri Biswait Pattnayak, S/O : Suryamani Pattnayak, Near DFO office, 4^th. Lane, Po/  Dist:    Rayagada, State:  Odisha.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                …….Complainant

Vrs.

1.The   Proprietor, Sanjay Mobile Care, Patrapada, Bhubaneswar, Dist: Khurda-751019.

2.The Manager, Xiaomi Technology India Pvt. Ltd., Outer Ring Road Bangalore, Karnataka State- 560103.

.…..Opp.Parties

Counsel for the parties:                                 

For the complainant: - Self.

For the O.Ps  :- Sri G.S.R.Choudhury, Advocate, Rayagada.

 

                                                JUDGEMENT.

The  curx of the case is that  the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps    for  non refund of price of the mobile set a sum of Rs.15,499/- towards found defective during warranty period     for which  the complainant  sought for redressal of the grievances raised by the complainant.

Upon  Notice, the O.P No.  1  neither entering in to appear before the forum nor filed their  written version inspite of more than  18 adjournments has been given  to them. Complainant consequently filed his memo and prayer to set exparte of the O.P No. 1 .  Observing lapses of around 4 years  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 1. The action of the O.P No. 1  are against the principles of  natural justice as envisaged  under section  13(2) (b)(ii) of the Act. Hence the O.P No.  1  was 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.

 

Upon  Notice, the O.P No.2   put in their appearance and filed  written version through their learned counsel in which  they refuting allegation made against them.  The O.P No.2   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.P No.2.   Hence the O.P  No.2 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  the M.I. brand namely    MI A1 bearing IMEI No. 866409030713701  and  86640903713719 on payment of consideration   a sum   for Rs.15,499/- to the  O.P. No.1 (copies of the  Retail invoice No. 1494 Dt.22.09.2017  is in the file which is marked as Annexure-I).

                The main grievance of the complainant  is that   the above set is giving  various problems  such as  display and speaker  are not working  well and having  battery problem inter alia   said  set is not at all in working condition  totally damaged. The  complainant  in their petition  mentioned that  he has orally  complained   to the  O.P. No.1`  inter alia  handed over the same to the service centre for   running  perfect condition.    Inspite of repairing the set  it is not at all in working  condition. So the  complainant  had requested    the O.P. No.1   to replace or refund purchase  price of the above set but the O.P. No.1     turned deaf ear. Hence this C.C. case.

                The O.P. No.2 in their written version contended that  the complainant has not approached any of   the  authorized service centre of the O.P. No.2.  Further the complainant has not provided any evidence  regarding manufacturing defects in the product.  It is therefore   clearly established that the complainant has provided false information in the complaint to  mislead the  forum and to unnecessarily harass the  O.P. No.2 by filing this case. Again the O.P. No.2 contended that  the product  in dispute is still under warranty and the  complainant  can approach the  No.2 or any of   its authorized service centre  within the warranty period and submit the product in  connection with any  defects in the product.   The O.P. No.2 will duly  carry out necessary technical examination of the product for ascertaining defects in the product and inform the  complainant regarding any defects in  the  product and whether the same can be   repaired  under the warranty  terms and conditions applicable to the product. The  forum  may be directed to the complainant to approach the O.P. No.2 for any assistance  he may  require.

This forum  observed there is no iota of evidence regarding the  complaints made  to the service centre  from time to time for rectification of the above set  filed by the complainant before the forum.  If he found  some  defects in the above set  he could have lodged a complaint to the service centre of the O.Ps and it is always open to  the M.I. mobile customers.  Had there been some mischief or malafied  on the part of the service centre officials of the  O.Ps  he should intimate the same to the O.P No.2(manufacturer) immediately through E-Mail.

This  forum   relied citations which are mentioned here.

  it is settled proposition of law as held in the case of Ravneet Singh BaggaVrs. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines, 1999(3) CPJ- 28 (SC), it was  held that the burden of proving  the  deficiency in service  is upon the   person who alleges it.  In case of   bona  fide    disputes to willful fault,  imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality,  nature or manner of performance in the service can be informed. If on facts it is  found that the person or authority rendering service had taken all  precautions and considered all relevant facts and circumstances in the  course of the transaction and that their  action or the final decision was  in good faith, it can not be said that there  had been any deficiency in service in the case in hand the complainant has failed to prove any  deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.

Further in the case of   Maruti Udyog Ltd. Vrs. Susheel  Kumar Gabgotra and others (AIR-2006)S.C 1586 where in the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed “Warranty conditions clearly refers to replacement of defective part not the  car – Not a case of silence of a contract of sale to warranty”.

Again in the case of Bajaj Tempo Ltd Vrs. Shri  Ajwant Singh & Another reported in  2014(3) CPR- 724  N.C.,  the  Hon’ble National Commission opined that “Manufacturing defect must be proved by expert opinion”.

Further in the case of Sandeep BhallaVrs.  Ashoka Electronics Pvt. Ltd.  IV(2011) CPJ 138(NC). The Ho’ble National Commission held that, if any product works smoothly 7-8 months  then it can not held to  be  defective. 

The O.P. No. 2  vehemently argued that in this case there is no defect in the  mobile set of the complainant, but the complainant has filed this fabricated complaint only to  tarnish the reputation of the O.P No.2 within  warranty period    and to secure the unlawful gains from the O.Ps.

Admittedly the  purchase of the mobile hand set   by the complainant is not denied.  The O.Ps have given an undertaking that they are  ready to  give the free  service as per the conditions of the warranty given to the said  set. 

This forum agree with the views taken by the O.P No.2 . in their written version.  We  do not  think  proper to go  into merit of this case.

Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances, we are of the decisive opinion that the instant case  is devoid  of merit.  Further  this forum do not find any other legal issue involved in the matter. In the circumstances, we do not see any reason which would call  for our interference.

So  to meet the  ends of justice    the following order is passed.

                                                                O R D E R

                In  resultant the complaint petition  stands  disposed off on contest against the O.Ps. 

The O.P No. 2  is  directed to remove all  the defects  of the above  set including  replacement of defective parts if any free of cost enabling the complainant to use the same in perfect running condition  if the complainant  approached  the O.Ps  to rectify the defect of his   set  and shall provide all sort of after sale service to the complainant as per the terms and conditions of the  warranty of the afore said   set.  There is  no order as to cost and compensation.

The O.P. No.1 is directed to refer the matter to the O.P. No.2 for early relief.

                Dictated and corrected by me.

                Pronounced in the open forum on  20^th.     .day  of    November, 2018.

MEMBER                               MEMBER                                                       PRESIDENT