Orissa

Cuttak

CC/145/2016

Srikanta Chaudhury - Complainant(s)

Versus

Proprietor,Mobile India - Opp.Party(s)

R K Pattanaik

25 Jul 2017

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,CUTTACK.

                                                                C.C. No.145 of 2016

 Srikanta Choudhury,

Lane No.1,Chahata Nagar,

Cuttack.                                                                                           … Complainant.

  

                Vrs.

 

1.        Proprietor,

Mobile India,

Dargha Bazar,

(Near Dr. Jayant Rath Clinic),

Cuttack.

 

2.        Proprietor

Omm Maa Agnecy,

Athorized Service Centre,Panasonic

India Pvt. Ltd.,

At:Upstairs of Punjab,

Natiional Bank, Arunodaya Market,

Link Road,Cuttack-12.

 

3.        Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd.,

Represented through its Chairman-cum-M.D.,

Regd. Office No.88,6^th Floor,”SPIC Building Annexe”,

Mount Road,Guindy,Chennai-600032.                                        … Opp. Parties.

 

 

Present:  Sri Dhruba Charan Barik,LL.B. President.

Sri Bichitra Nanda Tripathy, Member.

Smt. Sarmistha Nath, Member (W).

 

Date of filing:   31.12.2013

Date of Order: 25.07.2017

 

For the complainant:          Mr. R.K.Pattnaik ,Adv. & Associates.

For Opp.Party No., 1 & 2:   None.

For the O.P No.3:                 Mr. A.Tripathy,Adv. & Associates.

 

Sri Dhruba Charan Barik,President.

                The complainant having attributed deficiency in service and unfair trade practice to the O.Ps has claimed relief against them in terms of his prayer in the complaint petition.

1. Case of the complainant  stated in brief is that on 9,.10.2015 the complainant had purchased a mobile hand set  with battery and charger from O.P.1 for Rs.20,900/-.  The said mobile set was having model No. Panasonic (Eluga Switch) and IMEI No.353368070034131.  Annexure-1 is the copy of the cash memo No.4433 dt.9.10.2015 granted by the O.P No.1.  There was warranty cover for 12 months against any manufacturing defect of the said product.
2. It is found that after 5 to 6 months of use of the said hand set there were some disrupted lines appearing on the screen of the said mobile phone.  Then the complainant brought the said hand set to O.P.2 who is runing the authorized service centre for repair and left the hand set in the service centre of O.P.2 at his request.  After 10 days, when the complainant again visited service centre of O.P.2, he was told that the said hand set had not been received by the authorized person at Delhi.  Then the complainant issued a notice by registered post to the O.P on 29.07.2016 with request to return his hand set immediately.  Annexure-2 is the copy of the said notice sent by the complainant.  Thereafter the complainant went to the service centre at the request of O.P.2 and he was intimated that the display screen of the hand set could not be replaced since there was no warranty on the display screen.  The complainant was shocked to know this state of affairs and was sure that the hand set with manufacturing defect had been sold to him by the O.P No.1.  The said hand set has been still lying in the service centre of O.P.2 without being repaired.  A legal notice was then sent to the O.Ps on 14.09.2016 at the instance of the complainant.  Annexure-3 is the copy of the said legal notice. Though it was received by the O.Ps no reply was furnished for the reasons best known to them.
3. It is specifically stated that even after purchase of costly mobile hand set from the O.P.1, the complainant was deprived of using the same for a long period and it has caused undue mental tension and hardship to him.  Ultimately he set the law in motion by filing the present case against the O.Ps with a prayer that they may be directed to replace the old defective hand set by a new defect free one of the same brand or to refund the cost of the said hand set with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of its purchase till realization.  It is also prayed that the parties may be directed to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- and cost of litigation of Rs.5000/- to him in the interest of justice.
4. The O.Ps 1 & 2 neither appeared nor contested the case as such they have been set exparte.
5. It is only O.P.3 who contested the case by filing written version wherein the material averments made by the complainant in his complaint have been denied.  It is specifically stated that the hand set sold to the complainant by O.P.1 was not defective.  However it is admitted by the O.P.3 that he is ready to replace the said mobile hand set by a new defect free one or to refund the cost of the said mobile hand set to the complainant if he is so directed by the court.  With regard to payment of compensation and litigation cost or other relief sought for by the complainant, the O.P.3 has taken a complete plea of denial.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant as well as for the O.P.3 and gone through the annexures filed in this case.  The contents of Annexure-2 & Annexure-3 sent by the complainant to the O.ps indicating the defects in the said hand set and seeking their help in the matter, have not been duly responded to by the O.Ps in any manner.  In absence of anything to the contrary, it is held that the said hand set was defective which has caused undue mental tension and hardship to the complainant in using the said mobile hand set.  The O.P.3 has clearly admitted in the written version of his case that he is ready and willing to replace the old hand set by a new defect free one or to refund the cost of the said hand set to the complainant  but not to concede to any other relief claimed by the complainant towards compensation and cost of litigation.  But Annexure-2 & 3 clearly go to show that the O.ps are liable for providing a defective mobile hand set to the complainant.  As such there was deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part. Hence ordered;

The case of the complainant is allowed on contest against O.P.3 and exparte against O.Ps 1 & 2.  They are jointly and severally liable to indemnify the complainant.  They are directed to refund Rs.20,900/- to the complainant towards cost of the hand set which is still lying in the service centre of O.P.2.  With regard to other reliefs claimed by the complainant they are directed to pay Rs.10,000/- towards compensation and Rs.2000/- towards litigation cost to the complainant in the interest of justice,  This order shall take effect within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by the Hon’ble President in the Open Court on this the 26^th     day of July,2017 under the seal and signature of this Forum.

                                                                                                                                                  

    (   Sri D.C.Barik )

                                                                                                                      President.

                                                             

 

                                                                                                    (Sri B.N.Tripathy )

                                                                                                                           Member.

 

                                                                                                                (Smt. Sarmistha Nath)

                           Member(W)