Orissa

Rayagada

CC/156/2019

Sri Aneesh, - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, Apple India Pvt. Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Self

26 Nov 2020

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA,

STATE:  ODISHA.

C.C. Case  No. 156 / 2019.                                       Date.   26 . 11   . 2020.

P R E S E N T .

Sri Gadadhara  Sahu,                                                                      President –in-charge

Smt.   Padmalaya  Mishra,.                                                           Member

 

Sri Aneesh.B, S/O: B.Ratnakar, UGMIT   Road,  Kapilas Road,  Po/, Dist.Rayagada, State:  Odisha.               .

765 001                                                                                                                                 …….Complainant

Vrs.

1.The Manager,  Apple India Pvt. Ltd., No. 24,19^th. Floor, Concorde tower, ‘C’ UB City Bengaluru, Karnataka, India- 560001.

2.The Manager, Apex kondapur shop No.3, Ground floor, plot 1, Ravi colony, Besides Croma, Hyderabad, Tenangana- 500084.           .                   …..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  replacement  or refund of  price  towards  I phone XS(Gold 64 GB) mobile phone   which was not functioning within the warranty period. The brief facts of the case  has summarised here under.

          That  the  complainant  had purchased  a  I phone XS(Gold 64 GB) mobile phone

Bearing IMEI No. 357212093054211 from Sri Sampat   Gokul Krishna, G, S/O: G..Vasanth Kumar,  Rayagada in working   condition  on Dt.17.2.2019  against the sale letter . Originally  the I phone was purchased by Sri Sampat  Gokul   Krishna G., vide invoice No. KONDP II 16-19-2004 dtd. 31.12.2018 from  the O.P. No.2 (Dealer) by paying Rs.94,905/- having  one year warranty from the date of purchase. The above set found  defective  within warranty period  in turn  the same  has been  handed over to the  service centre on Dt. 29.6.2019 and  on  Dt.28.12.2019.    After rectification once  again the same problem persisted for which  the mobile phone is not working.  .Inspite of repeated contact to the O.Ps they  paid deaf ear   for repair or  replacement of the above set.     Hence  this case. The complainant prays the forum direct the O.Ps  to replace with a new defect free or  refund the purchase price of the above set  inter alia to pay  compensation towards mental agony and such other relief as the  forum deems fit and proper for the best interest of justice.

On being noticed  the O.Ps neither entering in to appear before the forum nor filed their  written version inspite of more than  05 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.

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

          Heard from 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  had purchased  a  I phone XS(Gold 64 GB) mobile phone bearing IMEI No. 357212093054211 from Sri Sampat   Gokul Krishna, G, S/O: G..Vasanth Kumar,  Rayagada in working   condition  on Dt.17.2.2019  against the sale letter. Originally  the I phone was purchased by Sri Sampat  Gokul   Krishna G., vide invoice No. KONDP II 16-19-2004 dtd. 31.12.2018 from  the O.P. No.2 (Dealer)  by paying Rs. 94,905/- having  one year warranty from the date of purchase (copies of the  tax invoice is in the file which is marked as Annexure-I). But unfortunately within   the warranty period  the above  set found defective and not functioning  properly. The complainant complained the OPs  service centre   for necessary repair in turn the OPs  not made  perfect .  Hence this C.C. case.  

.               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. service centre   found defect & noted with a comment.

                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  within warranty period. As the OPs deliberately lingering to file their written version or any other documents after lapses of above 7(Seven)months and observing the present situation, and nothing adversary to the complainant as adduced by the OPs. 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. 1 (Manufacturer)  is directed to return back the defective product from the complainant  by paying the price of the  I phone XS(Gold 64 GB) mobile phone   a sum of Rs.94,905/-. Parties are left to bear their own cost.          

The O.P. No.2(dealer) is directed to refer the matter to the O.P. No.1(Manufacturer) 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.

                Dictated and  corrected by me.

                Pronounced in the open forum on       26th       day of     November, 2020.

 

 

                                                                   MEMBER                                                                           PRESIDENT