Orissa

Rayagada

CC/95/2018

Sri Chinmaya Mohapatra - Complainant(s)

Versus

Savadika Retail Pvt. Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Self

30 Dec 2020

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    COMMISSION, RAYAGADA,

STATE:  ODISHA. PIN No. 765 001.

C.C. Case  No. 95 / 2018.                                         Date.   30 .  12   . 2020.

P R E S E N T .

Sri Gadadhara  Sahu,                                         President –in-charge

Smt.   Padmalaya  Mishra,.                               Member

 

Sri Chinmaya Mohapatra,  S/O: Kamala  Kanta  Mohapatra,  Brahmin  Street,  Rayagada(Odiha) Dist:  Rayagada.           Cell   No. 9040686867.                                                    …….Complainant

Vrs.

1.The Manager,  The mobile sold by  Savadika Retail Ltd.,  Sy. No. 696, Gundlapochamoally village, Medchal Mandal Ranga Reddy, Dist: Secundarbad, Telanga- 501401, Secundarabad, Telengana.

2.The  Manager, Xaomi Redmi (India), Regd office Savadika Retail Pvt. Ltd., 172, Deerwood, Nirvana Country, Sec 50 Gurgaon, Haryana, India, 122001.

…..Opp.  Parties

Counsel for the parties:                                 

For the complainant: - Self..

For the O.Ps  :- Set  exparte..

J u d g e m e n t.

          The  present disputes arises out of 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 which was not functioning within the warranty period. On being noticed  the O.Ps neither entering in to appear before the forum nor filed their  written version inspite of more than  10 adjournments has been given  to them. Complainant consequently filed his memo and prayer to set exparte of the O.Ps.  Observing lapses of around 1 year  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  in  the Act. Hence the O.Ps were 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.

          We therefore constrained to  proceed to dispose of the case, on its merit. 

          Heard from thelearned  counsel for the  complainant.   We perused the complaint petition and the document filed by the complainant.

         FINDINGS.

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

.               From the records it reveals that, the complainant has purchased a  Xaomi Redmi 4A  (4G mobile  phone)  bearing  IMEI No. 866133037981265 on Dt.21.9.2017 from the O.P No.1 by paying a sum of Rs.6,299/- vide  invoice No.FABA6D1800052389 Dt.21.9.2017. But unfortunately after delivery with in  warranty period the above  set found defective and not functioning. The complainant complained the OPs for necessary repair in turn the OPs  paid deaf  ear.  

.           From the records it is seen that, the complainant has filed Xerox copy of purchase bill which is in the file marked as Annexure-I.  Hence it is abundantly clear that, the complainant has repeatedly approached the OPs  for the defective of above  set with complaints where in the OPs.  not heard.

            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 witn in warranty period  of purchase. As the OPs deliberately lingering to file their written version or any other documents after lapses of above 08 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 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  is allowed  on exparte against the O.Ps.

The O.P. No.2 (Manufacturer) is directed to return back the defective product from the complainant  inter alia  to refund  price  of  Xaomi Redmi 4A  (4G mobile  phone)  a sum of Rs.6,299/- besides  Rs.1,000/-  damages towards mental agony  inter alia Rs.1,000/-  for litigation expenses.

            The O.P. No. 1(Retailer)  is  ordered to refer the matter to the O.P. No. 2   for early compliance of the above order.

            The entire directions shall be carried out with in 30 days from the  date of receipt   of this order.   Copies be served to the parties  free of cost.

Dictated and  corrected by me.   

Pronounced in the open forum on    30^th     day of    December, 2020.

 

                                                   MEMBER                                                    PRESIDENT