Orissa

Rayagada

CC/193/2021

Sri Hemanta Golari - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, Compu Shoppe - Opp.Party(s)

Self

18 Dec 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER DISPUTES  REDRESSAL COMMISSION, RAYAGADA,

AT:  KASTURI NAGAR, Ist.  LANE,   L.I.C. OFFICE     BACK,PO/DIST: RAYAGADA, STATE:  ODISHA, PIN NO.765001,.E-mail- dcdrfrgda@gmail.com

…

 

C.C.CASE  NO.__193_______/2021                                    Date.     18   .12.  2021.

 

P R E S E N T .

Sri   Gopal   Krishna   Rath,                                               President.

Smt.Padmalaya  Mishra,.                                                 Member

 

 

 

Sri  Hemanta  Golani,   Po/Dist: Rayagada(Odisha) 765001. Cell No.7978112258, 9937229588                      

….                    Complainant.

Versus.

1.The   Manager,  Compu Shoppe, Talya Para, G.E.Road,  Raipur,State:Chattisgarh.  Cell  No. 9826162220

2.The  Manager, Hewlett  Packard Global Soft Pvt. Ltd.  EC-2 Campus,

HP Avenue, Survey  No.39(Part), Electronic City, Phase-2, Hosur  Road, Bangalore- 560 100  India.                 ….                  Opposite parties.

.

For the complainant: - Self.

For the O.Ps:- Set exparte.

JUDGEMENT

The  crux of the case is that  the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps    for  non rectification of HP All-in-one PC 21  within warranty period  for which  the complainant  sought for redressal of the grievances raised by the complainant.                                      

On being noticed the O.Ps  had  returned  purchase  price  of the  P.C to the complainant.

After receipt of the purchase  price    the  complainant  prays the  District commission   to  pass order  for payment  compensation. 

Coming to the merits of the case the complainant had purchased the above  P.C.   from the O.Ps    on payment of consideration  an amount of Rs. 27,000/- on Dt. 8.06.2021 (copies of the   invoice marked as Annexure-I).  On perusal of the record we observed  the complainant  after using  some months for rectification of defects  from  time to time  she  approached the O.Ps.  for rectification  of the defects..

On perusal of the record we observed that  the complainant made several complaints  in shape of  E-mail  with the O.Ps pointing out the defects  which goes on to show that  right from  the very beginning  the above set was not performing  well and continued  repeatedly to develop defects  resulting  in  non-performance which was intimated by the complainant  through E-mail to the O.Ps(copies of the  same is available in the file which is marked as Annexure-2.   Further we observed that  on repeated complaints made  by the complainant to the O.Ps neither the defects have been removed nor replaced  with a new  set. We observed  inspite of  required  services made  with in the  warranty  period  the above set could not be rectified.  We  hold   at this stage if the above goods required frequent servicing then it can be presumed that it has a manufacturing defect. If a defective set  is supplied a consumer he  is entitled to get refund of the price of the  set or to replaced  with a new set and also the consumer concerned is entitled  and has a right to claim compensation and cost to meet the mental agony. In the instant case as it appears that the  above  set which was purchased by the complainant which had developed  defects 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 the above  set with an expectation to have the effective benefit of use of the above set. In this case the complainant was deprived of getting beneficial use   of the set and deprived of using the above set for such a long time and the defects were not removed by the O.Ps who could know the defects from time to time from the complainant . In the instant case the O.Ps are  liable. 

            Due to non rectification  of the defects   by  the  O.Ps   the  complainant  deprived   of   to get  money  for his  livelihood. 

 

In the above facts, circumstances  & on perusal of the record, the complaint petition,   documents, written argument  and referring on above Citations there  exists a strong “prima-facie” case in favor of the complainant.

Hence  to  meet the  ends of justice, the following order is passed. 

                                               

ORDER.

In resultant  the complaint petition is allowed  on exparte.

The O.Ps are directed to pay  Rs.20,000/- (Rupees  twenty thousand)only to the  complainant  towards mental  agony, expenses   towards livelihood  due to manufacturing  defect  and non functioning  of the above  P.C. from the date  of purchase.

The entire directions shall be carried out with in   15 days from the  date of receipt   of this order.Service the copies of the order to the parties free of cost.

 

Dictated and  corrected by me.

                Pronounced in the open   Commission   on                18^th.   day of       December,, 2021.

 

 

                                                                                MEMBER                                                   PRESIDENT