Orissa

Rayagada

CC/206/2016

Pradeep Kumar Patro - Complainant(s)

Versus

Propritor Sus Mobile - Opp.Party(s)

Self

28 Oct 2016

ORDER

          DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA

                                                   C.C. Case  No.206/ 2016.

 P R E S E N T .

Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash, LL.B,                             President.

Sri Gadadhara Sahu,B.Sc.,                                    Member

Sri Pradeep Kumar Patro, S/o Jogendra Patro, Raniguda Farm, Rayagada, Dist. Rayagada,.

                                                                                                     ………Complainant

Vrs

1. Proprietor, SVS Mobiles, Ganesh Market, Big Bazar, Berhampur, Dist. Ganjam, Odisha,760002.
2. Manager, Micromax Informatics Ltd., 21/14,Naraina Industrial Area,Phase-2,New Delhi,Delhi,110028.
3. Manager, Micromax Informatics Ltd., Head Office, Micromax House,90B,Sector 18,Gurgaon,Haryana 122015(India)                                

                                                                                            ……...Opp.Parties

Counsel for the Parties:

For the complainant: In Person

For the O.Ps: Exparte

                                                                        JUDGMENT

                        The facts of the complaint  in brief is that,  the complainant has purchased  one  Micromax Fire 4G mobile   from O.p. No.1 with a  consideration of Rs.6,600/- on 22.01.2016 vide money receipt No.97   but  from the next month s of  its  purchase the  mobile set  was  started giving problems and it could not be used properly for which  the complainant approached to M/s Sri Sai Tulsi Mobiles, Vizianagaram on 26.02.2016  which is the nearest Micromax Customer Service Centre  and the said service centre advised to the complainant  to call after repairing is over within two to three days but they never called to the complainant.  The complainant  contacted over phone to the service centre but  he did not respond  and not take any steps to get it repaired or to deliver a new mobile  in place of the defective mobile set and the said service centre  after one week handed over the mobile without any service and failed to rectify the defects and hence finding no other option  the complainant  approach this forum and prayed to direct the O.ps  to  refund the cost of  Rs.6,600/- . and  award compensation for mental agony  and such other relief as the forum deem fit and proper . Hence, this complaint.

                         On being noticed, neither the O.ps appeared nor filed any written version and as  the O.ps failed to appear before this forum despite service of notice, the proceeding was set exparte against them.

                        Heard and perused the complaint petition and documents filed by the complainant and we accept the grievance of the complainant. The Complainant  argued that the O.ps have sold a defective  mobile set  to the complainant and claimed that the O.ps caused deficiency in service and deprived of the complainant of enjoyment of the mobile set  since the date of  its purchase  which caused mental agony and harassment to the complainant.

Now we have to see whether there was any negligence of the Ops  in providing  after sale service  to the complainant as alleged ?

We perused the documents filed by the complainant.  Since the mobile set found defective after its purchase    and   the complainant  informed the Ops regarding the defect but the  Ops   failed to remove  the defect . At this stage we hold that  if the mobile set  require  servicing since  the date of its purchase, then it can be presumed that it is defective one and if the defective mobile set  is sold to the complainant , the complainant is entitled to get refund of the price of the article or to replace a new  one or  remove the defects  and also the   complainant is entitled  and has a right to claim compensation and cost to meet his mental agony , financial loss.  In the instant case  as it is appears that the mobile set  which was purchased by the complainant had developed  defects and the O.ps were unable to restore its normal functioning during the warranty period. It appears that the complainant invested  a substantial amount and purchased the mobile set  with an expectation to have the effective benefit of use of the article. In this case, the complainant was deprived of getting beneficial use of the article and deprived of using the mobile set  for such  and the defecates were not removed by the O.ps who  know the defects from time to time from the complainant.

Hence, in our view the complainant has right to claim compensation to meet  his mental agony, financial loss. Hence,  it is order.

                                               ORDER

                        The  opposite parties  are directed  to  refund the cost of the mobile set  i.e. Rs.6,600/-   and pay  compensation of Rs.1,000/-  for mental agony undergone by the complainant and cost of Rs.500/- . Further, we direct the Ops to pay the aforesaid award amount  within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the O.Ps are liable to pay  interest  @  12%  p.a. on the above awarded amount till  the date of payment. Accordingly the complaint is allowed.

                        Pronounced in open forum today on this 15^th  day of September,2016 under the seal and signature of this forum.

                         A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements , be forwarded to the parties    free of charge.

 

 

            Member                                                                                               President

Documents relied upon:

By the complainant:

1. Xerox copy of  Cash Memo.
2. Xerox copy of mobile purchase details.

By the Opp.Party: Nil

 

                                                                                                           President