Orissa

Cuttak

CC/207/2014

Anil Kumar Das - Complainant(s)

Versus

Proprietor,M/s Devi Communication - Opp.Party(s)

A K Samal

28 Aug 2017

ORDER

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

C.C No.207/2014

 

Anil Kumar Das,

Res. of At:Shanti Vihar,Aparna Nagar,

PO:Nayabazar,Town/Dist:Cuttack.                                                  .… Complainant.

 

Vrs.

1.         Proprietor,M/s. Devi Communication,

At:Ranihat(Near Pepsi Dresses),

PO:Buxi Bazar,,Town/Dist:Cuttack.

 

2.        Proprietor,M/s. Jagannath Enterprises,(Nokia Care),

At:Bajrakabati Raod,PO:Buxi Bazar,

                Cuttack

 

3.          Managing Director,Nokia India Pvt. Ltd.,

        Corporaote Office:Tower A & B,5^th Floor,

Sector-25-A,DLF City,Phase-3,

Gurgaon-122002(Haryana).                                                                … Opp. Parties.

 

Present:               Sri Dhruba Charan Barik,President.

Sri Bichitrananda Tripathy, Member.

Smt. Sarmistha Nath, Member (W).

 

Date of filing:    31.12.2014

Date of Order:  28.08.2017

 

For the complainant  :    Sri A.K.Samal,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.Ps.                :   Mr. P.K.Samantasinghar,Adv. & Associates.

 

Smt. Sarmistha Nath,Member(W).

 

                The complainant being a consumer has filed this complaint before this Forum against the O.Ps for Redressal of his grievances under the Consumer Protection Act,1986(Act in short) in terms of his prayer made in the complaint petition.  The allegation made in the complaint is with regard to defects in the goods purchased by her and deficiency in service provided and unfair trade practice adopted by the O.Ps.

1. The case of the complainant  in brief is that the complainant has purchased one “NOKIA-202” mobile hand set(silver white) Retail invoice sl. No.375 dt.06.05.2013 from the O.P No.1, paying Rs.4,050/- (Rupees four thousand fifty only) towards is cost with warranty of 12 months from the date of its purchase.  Copy of the retail invoice is annexed here with and marked as Annexure-1.  Just after a few months of its use, the above mobile set was malfunctioned within the warranty period.  It showed blank screen.  In other words it may completely dead and non-functional.  When the complainant went to the showroom of the O.P No.1 and enquired from him that as to why mobile set became non-functional within the warranty period, the O.P.1 instructed the complainant to contact the O.P No.2 service centre for its repairing.  As per the instruction of the O.P No.1, the complainant went to the service centre of the O.P No.2 on 14.11.2013 and delivered the handset to them for repairing.  After examining the handset the O.P No.2 told the complainant that he has to pay the charges towards repairing.  The complainant said him that as the mobile hand set became defective during the period of warranty he is not obliged to pay the repairing charges as peer the terms and conditions of warranty.  The O.P No.2 said that the mobile set turned defective due to mishandling by the complainant.  So he has to pay repairing charges.  When the complainant asked the O.P No.2 as to how he came to the conclusion that the mobile hand set became defective due to mishandling.  O.P No.2 could not give any satisfactory reply.  When the complainant visited the service centre (O.P.2) as well as the Bhubaneswar branch office of the Company at Sahidnagar on 26.2.2014 and 10.4.2014, he got a similar reply.  So the complainant approached the voluntary consumer organization and the said organization sent a notice to the O.P No.1 & 2 calling upon them to repair the hand set without any charge within 15 days but the O.Ps did not care to respond,(Annexure-2).  Finding no other way the complainant has taken shelter of this Hon’ble Forum.  He has prayed to instruct the O.Ps to refund the cost of mobile set i.e. Rs.4050/- along with interest @ 18% from the date of purchase till the date of final payment, he has also prayed for a further sum of Rs.5000/- as compensation towards mental agony and harassment.
2. The O.Ps though entered appearance but did not file written version and also did not participate in the hearing for which O.Ps set exparte on 19.07.2017.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and gone through the case record and documents and found that when the mobile hand set developed defects, the complainant has approached the O.Ps but O.Ps have neither rectified the defects nor replaced the defective hand set with a new one or returned the cost which clearly indicates their malafide intention to cheat the complainant which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the O.Ps.

EXPARTE ORDER

The prayer of the complainant is allowed exparte against the O.Ps.  The O.P. is directed to refund an amount of Rs.4,050/- to the complainant towards cost of the above mobile hand set.  The O.P will also pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as compensation to the complainant.  The complainant will refund the defective hand set to the O.Ps.

Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by the Hon’ble Member in the Open Court on this the 28^th    day of August,2017  under the seal and signature of this Forum.

 

  ( Smt. Sarmistha Nath )

                       Member (W)                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                (Sri D.C.Barik)

                                                                                                          President.

                                                                                                 (Sri B.N.Tripathy )

                                                                                                          Member