Orissa

Rayagada

CC/139/2017

Sri Pradeep Kumat Patro - Complainant(s)

Versus

Propritor Bharathi Teleservie Ware House - Opp.Party(s)

Self

21 Mar 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA,

STATE:  ODISHA.

C.C. Case  No. 139 / 2017.                                       Date.    21  . 03 . 2018.

P R E S E N T .

Dr. Aswini  Kumar Mohapatra,                          President

Sri Gadadhara Sahu,                                                                       Member.

Smt.Padmalaya Mishra,.                                                                Member

 

Sri Pradeep Kumar Patra, S/O: Jogendra Patra, Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd.,  Ist. Floor, IDBI Building,  Near Swagat Hotel,  Po/Dist: Rayagada, State:Odisha, pin No. 765 001                                                            …. Complainant.

Versus.

1.The Propritor, Bharathi Tele  Serv, Warehouse A, periyapalayam Road, Village No.107, Bandikavanoor village,  Chennai, Tamilnadu, pin No. 600067.

2. The Manager, Lenovo India Pvt. Ltd., Fems Icon,  Level-2 Doddanekundi Village, Marathahalli Outer ring road,  Marathahalli post, Kr Puram Hobil, Bangalore – 570037, Karnataka (India).

3.The Manager, Flexitronics Technologies(India) Ltd., (DTA Unit), plot No.l3, Phase-II, SIP COT industrial park,  Sandavellur ‘C’ village, Sriperumbudur Taluk,  Kanchipuram District, Tamilnadu- 6023106 India.

                                                                                                …         Opposite parties.

For the complainant: - Self.

For the O.Ps  :- Set exparte.

                                                          J u d g e m e n t.

          The  present disputes emerges out of the grievance raised in the  complaint petition filed by the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps for non  refund of  price  towards   mobile set.  The brief facts of the case  has summarised here under.

          That the  complainant  had purchased a  Lenovo K3 Note (17 GB, black)  mobile  bearing IMEI No. 869737027519922  from the O.P. No.1 on Dt. 21.12.2016 by paying cash payment of Rs.8,461/- having invoice No. S805C0/16-17/33305 Dt.21.12.2016  with one year warranty. The complainant  had started using the mobile from December, 2016. From that day  it was not performing well as per the network  is concerned. The mobile is unable  to provide the network of the SIM operator even in the city location.  The mobile  temperature always increases  unexpectedly. Due to the overheat the mobile  was  stopped working  and started hanging  due to heat and hanging every time and it needs restart. The O.Ps have no service centre within 100 KMs. Radios of the complainant and it is difficult to roam around 200 Kms. on the complainant’s part for servicing  the mobile hand set. The complainant could not used the mobile set  due to its  defects. The complainant approached  from pillar to post  for  redressal  of  their grievance but  the O.Ps paid deaf ear. Hence this case.  The complainant prays the forum direct the O.Ps  to refund  mobile price a sum of  Rs.8,461/- inter alia  to pay compensation and  litigation expenses and such other relief as the hon’ble forum deems fit and proper  for the best interest of justice. 

On being noticed the O.Ps. neither entering in to appear before the forum nor filed their  written version inspite of more than  05 adjournments has been given  to them. Complainant consequently filed his memo and prayer to set exparte of the O.Ps.  Observing lapses of around 05 months  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. The action of the O.Ps is against the principles of  natural justice as envisaged  under section  13(2) (b)(ii) of the Act. Hence the O.P. 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.

          The complainant has been heard at length & perused the records.

                From the records it reveals that, the complainant has purchased a mobile set  from the O.P.No.1 by paying a sum of Rs.8,461/- with invoice No. S805C0/16-17/33305 Dt.21.12.2016  with one year warranty. With in    15 days the above  set found defective and not functioning. The complainant  had contacted  the OP. No. 1  for necessary repair in turn the OP.1  refused   to do  any needful repair or  replaced with a new one.  .  The complainant further approached the OPs for return the money which he spent but for no use.

.               From the records it is seen that, the complainant has filed Xerox copy of purchase bill.  Hence it is abundantly clear that, the complainant has repeatedly approached the OPs for the defective of above  set with complaints.

                On examining the whole transactions, it is pertinent to mention here that, there is One year valid warranty for the alleged above set and the defect arose with 15 days of purchase. As the OPs deliberately lingering to file their written version or any other documents after lapses of above 05 months, and observing the present situation, and nothing adversary to the complainant as adduced by the OP, the forum relying on the version of the complainant is of the view that, the alleged  set has inherent defect and there is vivid deficiency in service by the OPs declining to redress the grievances of his consumers i.e.  the  present complainant, hence the complainant is entitled to get the price of the said set or a new same set instead of the defective one along with such substantial compensation for all such harassment having been impounded with mental agony and deprivation of the use for the same  for long time  and so also the cost of litigation. We found there is deficiency in service by the OPs and the complainant is entitled to get relief.

                On appreciation of the evidences adduce before it, the forum is inclined to allow the complaint against the OPs.

                                                                                O R D E R

                In  resultant the complaint petition  stands allowed  in part  on exparte against the O.Ps.

                The O.Ps. directed to return back the defective product from the complainant  by paying the price of the  above mobile set  a sum of Rs. 8,461/-     besides  to pay an amount of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one  thousand) towards   mental agony   and litigation cost to the complainant.

                The entire directions shall be carried out with in 30 days from the  date of receipt   of this order.

Service the copies of the order to the parties free of cost.

Dictated and corrected by me

Pronounced on this                  21st.  day of   March, 2018.

 

 

MEMBER                                                                              MEMBER                                                    PRESIDENT