Orissa

Rayagada

CC/371/2016

Deeptimayee Lenka - Complainant(s)

Versus

Taras Overseans - Opp.Party(s)

Self

09 Feb 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA,

STATE:  ODISHA.

C.C. Case  No. 371/ 2016.                                        Date.     9   .2. 2018.

P R E S E N T .

Dr. Aswini  Kumar Mohapatra,                   President

Sri GadadharaSahu, .                               Member.

Smt.  Padmalaya  Mishra,                          Member

Sri Deeptimayee   Lenka, W/O: Manas Kumar Lenka, At: Raniguda Farm, ,  Po/Dist:Rayagada.    Dist.Rayagada,State:  Odisha.            765  001                                  …….Complainant

Vrs.

1.The Manager, TARAS Overseas Pvt. Ltd., SCO-35, Commercial  complex, Kundali, Sonipath, Hariyana.

2.The Manager,  SPICE Retail Pvt. Ltd., 7^th. Floo, FC-24, Sector-16-A, Film city, NOIDA-201301, Utterpradesh.

.                                                                                                           .…..Opp.Parties

Counsel for the parties:                         

For the complainant: - Self.

For the O.P No.1:- Sri Sitaram Panda, Advocate, Rayagada(Odisha)

For the O.P.  No.2:- 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 mobile price. The brief facts of the case are summarized here  under.

That the complainant  had purchased a mobile SPICE XLIfeM5Q+5inch(12.7cm)3G Quad core Android phone-Grey, vide IMEI No. 911452300206613 for  Rs. 4,699/-  from the O.P. No.1 on Dt.  21.12.2015 through online.  The O.P. No.1 has given  bill  for mobile vide Invoice No. 188959  dt. 21.12.2015 with  one year warranty. The complainant  faced  so many  problems  in the above set i.e.  the  camera and speaker of the mobile set did not function, Camera and speaker  not functioned totally, the mobile is hanging and automatic switch up within the warranty period. The complainant had  informed  the O.Ps    and told all the problems faced by  him, but the O.Ps are  paid deaf ear with the grievance of the complainant.  Hence this case. The complainant prays the forum  direct the O.Ps  to refund  mobile  set  price and such other relief  as the hon’ble deems fit and proper  for the best  interest of  justice.

On  being noticed the O.P No.1 appeared through their learned counsel and filed Written version inter alia refuting the allegation  levelled against him. The O.P.No.1  submitted that this  forum  has lacks of territorial jurisdiction  as the  Registered office  of the O.P. No.1 is located at Haryana.   The order for the  product  was placed on 21.12.2015and the complainant received the  product on Dt. 04.1.2016.  It is  well  settled fact  that  after  sales service  during the  tenure of the warranty  period are provided by the manufacturer of the  product in question.  The present  complaint    is not maintainable against the O.P. No.1  as a vendor/seller  O.P.No.1 was required   to timely  deliver  the original  product for which  the order was placed, which is admittedly performed  by the O.P.No.1.  The  warranty  card can  be availed by  the  complainant  in case of non working and any defect in the product  during  the warranty period from the  O.P.No.2. The O.P.No.1 ‘s  role is only to book the order and to timely  deliver the product in question. At  the time of purchase  order it was clear to the complainant  that for any after sale defects  the manufacturer only is liable to rectify the same through its authorized service centre. The O.P.No.1 prays the   forum  the present complaint is liable to be dismissed against the O.P. No.1.

 

On being noticed the O.P No.2 neither entering in to appear before the forum nor filed their  written version inspite of more than  06 adjournments has been given  to them. Complainant consequently filed his memo and prayer to set exparte of the O.Ps.  Observing lapses of around one 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  under section  13(2) (b)(ii) of the Act. Hence the O.P. 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.

Heard from the learned counsel for the O.P. No. 1 and complainant.  Perused the record filed by the parties.

The  learned counsel  for the O.P No.1 advanced arguments  vehemently touching the points both on the facts  as well as on  law.

          FINDINGS.

From the records it reveals that, the complainant has purchased a mobile set  from the O.P.  No.1  by paying a sum of Rs. Rs. 4,699/-  with Invoice No. 188959  dt. 21.12.2015 with  one year warranty. But unfortunately after delivery  with in few months the above  set found defective and not functioning. The complainant complained the O.Ps  for necessary repair in turn the OP paid deaf ear.   The complainant further approached the O.Ps for return the money which he spent but for no use.

.           From the records it is seen that, the complainant has filed Xerox copy of purchase bill.  Hence it is abundantly clear that, the complainant has repeatedly approached the O.Ps for the defective of above  set with complaints where in the O.P knows from time to time.

            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 after few month  of purchase. As the O.P No.2  deliberately lingering to file their written version or any other documents after lapses of above one year, and observing the present situation, and nothing adversary to the complaint as adduced by the O.P. 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 or a new same set instead of the defective one 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 O.P No.2  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 O.Ps.

                                                            O R D E R

            In  resultant the complaint petition  is allowed  against the O.Ps.

            The O.P. No.2  is directed to return back the defective product from the complainant  by paying the price of the  mobile SPICE XLIfeM5Q+5inch(12.7cm)3G Quad core Android phone-Grey a sum of Rs. 4,699/- besides  to pay an amount of Rs.1.000/- (Rupees one thousand) towards litigation cost to the complainant.

            The O.P.  No.1 is  directed 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 45 days from the  date of receipt   of this order. Serve the order  to the  parties free of cost.

            Pronounced in the open forum on      9^th.day of February, 2018.

 

MEMBER                                                MEMBER                                                                                            PRESIDENT