Orissa

Jajapur

CC/18/2018

Soumya Ranjan Satapathy - Complainant(s)

Versus

SYSKA HOUSE - Opp.Party(s)

Ld.Adv

09 Jul 2018

ORDER

IN  THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JAJPUR.

                                                        Present:      1.Shri Jiban ballav Das , President

                                                                            2.Sri Pitabas Mohanty, Member,                             

                                             Dated the 9th day of  July,2018.

                                                      C.C.Case No.18 of 2018

Soumya Ranjan Sathpathy    

At/P.O. Mangarajpur  P.S.Jajpur Sadar   

Dist.- Jajpur .                                                                                          …… ……....Complainant .                                                                                                       

                                                  (Versus)

1.Syska House,Plot No.89,90,91,Lane No.4, Sr.No. 232/ 1+ 2, Sakore Nagar,

Pune, Moharastra

2. FLIPKART ,Niladri Vihar rd,Niladri Vihar ,Chandrasekharpur, BBSR.

 P.O/ Dist .Jajpur  .

                                                                                                                               ……………..Opp.Parties.                                                                                                                                          

For the Complainant:                                    Self.

For the Opp.Parties : No.1  and 2                  None

 

                                                                                                        Date of order:   09 .07.2018.

SHRI  JIBAN BALLAV DAS, PRESIDENT   .       

The petitioner has filed the present dispute alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.

            The facts relevant as per complaint petitioner shortly are  that the petitioner purchased a power bank from flipkart on 3^rd July 2017 paying  consideration amount of Rs. 999/- from O.P.no.2  which was  manufacturer by   O.P no.1  having  6 months  warranty from the  date of purchase.  But after 4 months from the date of purchase the  said product lost  working  capacity . So the petitioner  contacted the o.P.no..1  on 7^th Nov-2017 and registered a complain vide  complain no. ACS 171107670 . Thereafter the   executive  of O.P.no.1 gave  assurance  that  they will provide a new product within 14 working days   and the courier boys of the O.ps  received the defective product  but till 10 th Nov -2017 the courier boys   neither came  nor contacted to  the petitioner ,  so the petitioner again contacted to O.P no.1  who replied that :

“  We can not go to your  address so you have to courier  that product to us and  the courier   charges  will  be send to the petitioner’s bank account  “  .

Hence on 13rd December -2017 the petitioner sent  the alleged power bank  through Indian speedy post vide parcel No . E0671773490IN   and the O.P no.1 received the same on 20 th December- 2017. But it is a matter of great regret the petitioner did not  receive  the product till date  . Accordingly the petitioner knocked the door of this Fora  to direct the O.P.no.1 to replace the defective product or  to return the money of Rs.1029/- along with pay compensation  of Rs. 50,000/- towards cost and harassment.

            After notice the O.P.no.1 enter into appearance through their learned   advocate and filed the written version taking the  following stands :

The present complaint is not maintainable in the eye of law.

The case is barred by law of territorial jurisdiction.

            That admittedly the complainant ordered  one Syska power Bank model No.XII011000MAH  on 26.06.2017, vide order No..0D1095336927267244000  and billing address is Suvashree  NI/28 IRC Village ,Bhubaneswar  . The complainant has lodged   a complaint  that the said  power bank is not charging,  after receiving the complain  the O.P.no.1  has taken  necessary steps as possible on their part. But inspite of  that the complainant send a Mail on 20^th February ,2018   stating that

            “ I do not want to use your product any more for your late service. So  I  want my  money back to me    I will return that because I have already order a power bank for me. And  complained to National  consumer helpline about this Vide complain  number 617436 and there after filed this case.”

            For the above  reasons stated  above and other  are  submitted  at the time of hearing  for which the complaint case is liable to dismissed.

The O.P.no1 also filed a maintainability petition  U/S 11 of C.P. Act  stating  that  as per section 11  of C.P.Act  this Forum  has no territorial jurisdiction to decide the matter because the  complainant   purchase a power bank from O.P.no.2 situated at BBSR neither the o.ps reside within the jurisdiction of this forum nor carries on business .Hence the complaint case  is liable to be dismissed on the point of territorial jurisdiction .

            On the date of hearing we heard the argument from the petitioner and the learned counsel of the O.P .

            After perusal of the record and documents in   details we observed that :

1 It  is undisputed  fact the complainant purchased the alleged power bank  from O.P.no.2  .The O.p.no.1 is the manufacturer of power bank and  who has given six months warranty from the date of purchase of the above product .

2it is also undisputed facts that  after purchase  within  4 months such product became defective  and the petitioner lodged complaint before O.P.no.1 so also  the petitioner  sent the  product through Indian speedy post  to O.P.no.1  but till the date of filing  the dispute  neither the O.P.no.1  replaced  the product nor corresponding anything about the affairs  was intimated  to  the petitioner  . Hence the petitioner filed the present dispute .  On the other hand  the O.P.no.1 taken the main stand that this For a has no territorial jurisdiction as per section 11 of C.P.Act .  In this  point in view of section 11(c) it is crystal clear that this court have ample  jurisdiction to try this case . As per observation  of Hon’ble National commission reported in 1997(2)-CLT-345- M/S patel Roadways Ltd, Vs. Tokuson-Menson paper manufacturing Co. Ltd  and  1997(1)CPC-666-N.C ,wherein it is held that:

“jurisdiction-Cause of action-Branch office –Sec.11(2)(a)(b) of C.P.Act R/W Sec.20     CPC-No cause of action accrued at the place where the complaint is filed as the company has its

Branch office there. Held that mere existence of a Branch office of company does not give jurisdiction unless cause of action had accrued at that place “.

                                                        And

Diarv No (S) 15120/2017 (S.C.)  Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dt.07.02.2017 in R.P.No.1396/2016 passed by the Hon’ble  National  commission, New Delhi .(Spicejet Ltd, Vrs.Ranju Aery)

Add to it we are in a digital age and  due to prevalence of E-commerce  most of the transactions are now performed online .So the question of jurisdiction being old and out dated has lost  its significance . 

            Accordingly we are inclined to hold that the op.1 / manufacturer of the above alleged product committed patient deficiency of service and unfair trade practice  since the O.P no.1 has not  provided  essential service during the period of warranty  and taken a technical point before this Fora like jurisdiction on the above dispute  though jurisdiction is a technical point in view of the observation of Hon’ble National Commission reported in 2009(2) CPR-91-NC.

Hence this order

            The dispute is allowed against the O.p.no.1 and dismissed against O.P.no.2. The O.P.no.1 is directed to return the price of the product along with speed post charges and compensation a sum of Rs.2,000/-(  two  thousand )  to the petitioner within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which such awarded amount will  carry 9% interest from the date of filing of the present dispute till its realization. The petitioner can recover the same by initiating  the proceeding U/S 25 and 27 of C.P. Act before this Fora .

 

This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this the 9th  day of  July,2018. under my hand and seal of the Forum.