Orissa

Cuttak

CC/63/2016

Nishikanta Mishra - Complainant(s)

Versus

Reliance Digital - Opp.Party(s)

Self

12 Feb 2018

ORDER

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

C.C No.63/2016

Sri Nishikanta Mishra,

C/o: Lt. Dhaneswar Behera,

House No.1297,Ward No.23,

Near Taladanda Canal,Kalyani Nagar,

P.S:Madhupatna,Dist:Cuttack,,Odisha.                                           … Complainant.

 

                Vrs.

 

 

1.         Reliance Digital,Plot No.967

Unit No.24, College Square,Cuttack,Odisha.

 

2.        KARBOON CUSTOMER CARE SERVICE,

KARBOON MOBILES,

Jaina Marketing and Associates,

D-170,Okhla Industrial Area,

Phase-1,New Delhbi-110020,India.

 

3.         CHANNEL-4,

Dolamundai Square,

Near Kedarson Colours,Cuttack.

 

4.        OMM MAA AGENCY,

Link Road,Infront of

Yamaha Show room,Cuttack.… Opp. Parties.

 

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

Sri Bichitra Nanda Tripathy, Member.

Smt. Sarmistha Nath, Member (W).

 

Date of filing:   06.05.2016

Date of Order: 12.02.2018

 

For the complainants:             Complainant himself.

For O.P.No. 1               :             Mr.S.Lal,Adv. & Associates.

 For the O.P No.2,3 & 4:                             None.

 

Sri Bichitra Nanda Tripathy,Member                                                     

The case of the complainant is against the O.Ps deficiency in service.

1. The case of the complainant in nutshell is that the complainant purchased a Karboon 52 plus mobile phone from ‘Reliance Digital, Jobra Road, Cuttack (O.P No.1) on 05.03.2015.  The phone was with one year warranty.(Details of bill enclosed).  During June,20154 the said phone had a display problem for which the phone was shown to O.P.1.  O.P No.1 advised the complainant to hand over the mobile to O.P No.3, the authorized service centre.  Accordingly the mobile set was given to O.P No.3 for repair on 07.07.2015 but it was not repaired till 13.11.2015.  The complainant brought back the telephone and again contacted O.P No.1, who again advised to repair the said phone with O.P No.4.  The mobile was handed over to O.P No.4 on 24.11.2015 who agreed to repair the said phone within 8 working days.  Till date the complainant has neither received back his phone nor received a satisfactory reply from the O.Ps in spite of several follow-ups with the O.Ps.

Finding no other way, the complainant has taken shelter of this Hon’ble Forum.He has prayed to direct the O.Ps to pay a sum of Rs.75,000/- as compensation alongwith a new mobile phone.

2. O.P No.1 vide written version dt.06.12.2016 has intimate that the complainant had purchased a mobile phone.  The said phone developed display problem for which the complainant was advised to repair the said phone with O.P No.3. Afterwards the complainant was also advised to hand over the telephone to O.P No.4 for repair.  O.P No.1 is a retailer whereas O.P No.3 & 4 are authorized service centers of the company who are appointed by the manufacturer to provide service to the customers.
3. O.P No.2, O.P No.3 & O.P No.4 neither participated in the hearing nor submitted any written version.  Hence set exparte on 01.02.2018.
4. We have gone through the case records in details and heard the parties (the complainant and O.P No.1) at length.  It was observed that the complainant purchased a Karbon-52 plus mobile phone from O.P No.1 for Rs.4,799/- on 05.03.2015,  The said mobile phone was with one year warranty.  During June,2015 the said phone developed some problems relating to display of the phone for which it was given to O.P No.3 for repairing on 07.07.2015.  It was not repaired by O.P No.3 and again given to O.P No.4 for repair for the same problem on 24.11.2015.  Till date the said phone has not repaired and still kept with O.P No.4.  O.PNos .2,3 & 4 neither participated in the hearing nor submitted any written version.  Thus we conclude that O.P No.2,3 & 4 have nothing to say further in their defense and we are constrained to accept the uncontroverted allegations as made against them by the complainant.

Basing on the facts and circumstances as stated above, it is clear that the O.Ps (2,3 & 4) are at fault for not repairing the telephone even within the warranty period and also not returning the said telephone to the complainant till date.Hence O.Ps No. 2,3 & 4 are found deficient in service.

                                                                               ORDER

O.P No.2 will hand over a new mobile phone of same model to the complainant. O.P No.2 will also pay a sum of Rs.5000/- to the complainant as compensation for mental agony.O.P No.3 & 4 will also pay a sum of Rs.5000/- each to the complainant as compensation towards mental agony for not repairing the mobile phone properly/for not intimating the developments to the complainant regarding the repair work of the said phone.

The above payments and supply of new mobile to the complainant shall be completed within a period of 45 days, failing which the complainant is at liberty to take shelter of this Hon’ble Forum as per C.P.Act,1986.

Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by the Hon’ble Member in the Open Court on this the 12^th day of February,2018under the seal and signature of this Forum.

              (Sri B.N.Tripathy )

                                                                                                                     Member.

                                                                                               

                                                                                                              (  Sri D.C.Barik )

                                                                                                                     President.

                                                                                                          (Smt. Sarmistha Nath) 

                                                                                                      Member(W).