Orissa

Rayagada

CC/284/2016

Karunakar Sabar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sukadaev Sabar - Opp.Party(s)

Self

02 Nov 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGAD

                                     C.C. Case  No.284/ 2015.

 P R E S E N T .

Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash, LL.B,                             President.

Sri Gadadhara Sahu, B.Sc.,                                     Member

Muna Pradhan At: Maruti Colony,2nd Lane,Po: R.K.Nagar,Dist: Rayagada, Odisha,765001.                                                                        ………Complainant

                                                            Vrs.

 

1.  North India Top Company ,Dharuhera, TCI Supply Chain Solution, Dharuhera, Dist. Rewari,122110,Haryana.,
2. Customer Care Executive, C/o Spice Retail Co. Ltd.,S.Global Knowledge Park,19A & 19 B,Se-125,Noida,201301,Uttar Pradesh, India.
3. My Zone, Ground Floor, Station Road, Rayagada, Service Center of Spice Mobile.

                                                                                                  ……...Opp.Parties

Counsel for the parties:

For the complainant:  In person

For the O.p No.2:Self

For the O.p 1 &3: Set Exparte                               JUDGMENT

                        The case  of the complaint  in brief is that,  the complainant has purchased  one   Spice   Mobile   from O.p. No.1   on 28.07.2014  with a  consideration of Rs.3,999/- vide Invoice No.RL-151356    with one year warranty but  after two months of its purchase  the  mobile set  started giving  trouble  and the complainant immediately complained the matter to the Opp.Party 1 and the O.p 1 directed the O.P 3 for  to after sale service but the O.p 3 failed to rectify the defects.  Hence, the complainant   finding no other option filed this present dispute with a prayer to  direct the O.ps to replace the mobile set with a new one or refund  the full sale consideration amount of Rs.3,999/-  and also claim  compensation  for mental agony and litigation expenses  . Hence, this complaint.

                         On receipt of notice  the O.p 2  evidence of affidavit   and denied the petition allegations on all its material particulars. The O.p 1 & 3 were absent as such they were set exparte.

                        The O.p. No.2 submitted that  the complainant has failed to attach copy of the invoice with his complaint and hence he is not a consumer  and this complaint is not maintainable under the C.P. Act. The complainant purchased the handset on 28/7/14 which carried limited warranty of one year  and since the warranty of the said handset  has already been expired long back, this handset is outside the purview of limited warranty and accordingly the O.p 2  stands released from its warranty obligations immediately upon expiry of the limited warranty. Whenever the complainant visited the service centre, he was given due and proper services and duly repaired handset was handed over to him in a fully working condition within a stipulated time period. Hence, there is no deficiency on the part of the O.p2. Since the complainant has failed to attach any document to prove his statement, all the allegations are false and fabricated and this complaint is liable to be dismissed.                    Now we have to see whether there was any  negligence  on the part of the O.ps in treating the complainant as alleged ?

We  perused the  documents filed by the complainant  and it  proves that the complainant has purchased a mobile set  though O.p. No.1  and after its purchase when the mobile set was found defective the  O.P failed to rectify the defect as  no service center is available  in the locality where the O.p sold  their mobile set to the complainant. At the time of selling their products the O.ps should ensure that they would provide after sale service to the customer but in this case  the O.ps sold their produce and failed to give after sale service which is a clear deficiency in service on the part of the O.ps. At this stage we hold that  if the mobile set  require service immediately after its purchase then it can be presumed that it is manufacturing  defective   and  if a defective mobile is supplied , the consumer  is entitled to get refund of the price of the product/article  or to replace a new one  and also the consumer concerned is entitled and has a right to claim compensation and  cost  to meet his mental agony, financial loss.  In the instant case as it appears that the mobile set which was purchased by the complainant had developed defects immediately after its purchase 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 a mobile set  with an exception to have the effective benefit of use of the product but in this case the complainant was deprived of getting beneficial use of the article and deprived of  in using the mobile set for such a long time and the defects were not removed  by the O.ps and the complainant has also no scope to make it repair as the O.ps have no service center is available where the complainant resides.

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

ORDER

The Opp. Parties are directed to   repair  the mobile set with fresh warranty   and pay compensation of Rs.1000/- and  pay Rs.300/- towards litigation cost  to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order failing which the  complainant has  the liberty to file execution proceeding U/s 27 of the C.P.Act,1986 to execute the order .

                        Pronounced in open forum today on this 16^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  Invoice dt.28.07.2014

2.Xerox copy of Service  request dt.17.06.2015.

 

By the Opp.Party: Nil    

                                                                                                                                                                President