Orissa

Rayagada

CC/136/2018

Gopal Gouda - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, Consulting Room Pvt., - Opp.Party(s)

Self

17 Jul 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

POST  /  DIST: Rayagada,  STATE:  ODISHA,12.10  Pin No. 765001.

                                                      ******************

C.C.case  No.       136         / 2018.                                 Date.  17.       7. 2019

P R E S E N T .

Dr. Aswini  Kumar Mohapatra,                                      President

Sri   Gadadhara  Sahu,                                                      Member.

Smt.Padmalaya  Mishra,.                                                Member

 

Sri Gopal Gouda,  Po: Therubali, At: D.P.Camp  Po/ DIST: Rayagada, State:  Odisha,  PIN No. 765 018.  Cell No.95561-90958.                   …..Complainant.

Versus.

1.The Manager, Consulting Rooms Pvt. Ltd.,SY No. 696/GunblapoChampally, Village: Medchal, Mandal: Rangareddy, Dist: Secundrabad, Telengana State,  501 401.

2.The Manager, Regd. Office, Consulting Rooms Pvt. Ltd., House No. 37 / 3, Old Rajendra Nagar, Near Water tank, Central Delhi,  New Delhi- 110060.

3. The Manager, V Sun Mobile Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.2, Sector-8, HSHDC,Bawal, Rewari, Hariyana, 123501, (India).                                 …Opposite parties.           

Counsel for the parties:                                 

For the complainant: - Self.

For the O.Ps 1 & 2   :- Sri  R.K.Jena,  Advocate, Rayagada.

For the O.P.No.3:-  Set Exparte.

 

                                                JUDGEMENT.

The  curx of the case is that  the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps    for  non refund of price of the handset Smartron mobile set   a sum of Rs.8,999/- towards found defective during warranty period     for which  the complainant  sought for redressal of the grievances raised by the complainant.

1. Back ground  facts in a nutshell  are that  the complainant  had  placed order  for  purchase of Handset  WG87569 Smartron HSN 85171290 vide IMEI No.911568300345422 through Home shop-18 on line    vide Invoice  No.FAAR131800313480 DT.  25.12.2017 of the  O.P. No.1  and paid  Rs.8,999/- (Rupees Eight thousand Nine hundred  Ninety nine)only to the  O.P.  In turn  the O.P. No.1 had sent  Smartronmobile  through  courier service    which  was received  by the complainant   during the month of  December,2017.  After  using some months the above set found defective    so the complainant  had  intimated to the  O.Ps  service centre and handed over the same on Dt.6.6.2018 but the servicecentre has not rectified  the defects  of the above set. Hence this case filed by the complainant  for redressal of his  grievance before the forum as  he  has  no alternative  then to approach   this forum.   The complainant prays the forum direct the O.Ps    to     refund  the amount   towards purchase price of the above product  along with  interest  with  bank rate from the  date of purchase till   the date payment  & such other  relief as the  forum deems fit and proper  for  the interest of justice.

On being noticed the O.Ps. No. 1 & 2 have  filed written version through their learned counsel and contended   that  the present complaint is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed against the O.P. 1 & 2.  The O.P. 1 & 2   are protected  by the provisions of Section-79 of the Information  Technology Act, 2000. The  O.P. No.2 neither offers  nor provides any assurance and/or offers  warranty   to the     buyers  of the  product.. The  O.P. 1 & 2 are neither  a  ‘trader’ nor a ‘service provider’ and there does not exists any privity of contract   between the complainant and  the O.P. No.2.  The O.P. 1 & 2 are  only  limited  to providing on  line platform  to facilitate the whole transaction of sale and purchase of goods by the respective sellers and buyers on its  website. The O.P 1 & 2  were taking one and other pleas in the written version   sought to dismiss the complaint as it is not maintainable  under the C.P. Act, 1986. The facts which are not specifically admitted may be treated  as denial of the O.P 1 & 2. .The O.P. 1 & 2 are  in their written version relied  citations of the apex court. The O.Ps  prayed to dismiss the complaint petition against   O.P. 1 & 2  for the best  interest   of justice.

On being noticed  the O.P No.3  neither entering in to appear before the forum nor filed their  written version inspite of more than  10 adjournments has been given  to them. Complainant consequently filed his memo and prayer to set exparte of the O.P No.3.  Observing lapses of around 8(eight) months  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.P No.3  is against the principles of  natural justice as envisaged  under section  13(2) (b)(ii) of the Act. Hence the O.P  No.3  was  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 complainant and from the learned counsel for the  O.P. No.1 & 2.   We perused the complaint petition and the documents filed by the parties.

         FINDINGS.

               

.               From the records it reveals that,   the complainant  had  placed order  for  purchase of Handset  WG87569 Smartron HSN 85171290 vide IMEI No.911568300345422 through Home shop-18 on line    vide Invoice  No.FAAR131800313480 DT.  25.12.2017 of the  O.P. No.1  and paid  Rs.8,999/- (Rupees Eight thousand Nine hundred  Ninety nine)only to the  O.P. (copies of the  tax invoice is in the file which is marked as Annexure-I). After using some months the above mobile found  defect  i.e. display dead so the complainant approached the service centre  situated at Bhubaneswar(Odisha) on Dt.6.6.2018  for its rectification (copies of the  service centre  report  is in the file which  is marked as  Annexure-2), but  the  same defects persist and not  usable by the  complainant  further.  Hence this C.C. case.

Admittedly the  purchase of the mobile hand set of Smartron Company  by the complainant is not denied.  The O.Ps have given an undertaking that they are  ready to  give the free  service as per the conditions of the warranty given to the said  set.  The complainant submitted that  as  per the  warranty condition  he was approached  from pillar to post but the complainant  has  not get any  fruitful  result  till  date from any of  the  O.Ps.

It is well settled principle of law that  no consumer will make any such complaint if there is no such deficiency. Hence the action of the O.Ps for not giving the required service  to the complainant is a deficiency in service  on the part of the O.Ps.

Further it is observed that the complainant is deprived of enjoyment of the mobile set for such a long time and caused mental torture and harassment to the complainant.  Further more the complainant is a practicing  regular lawyer in the all courts.

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 papers filed by the complainant for replacement of New  set from the very beginning.   Inspite of  services  given by the O.Ps the defects of the  above set of the complainant  could not be rectified.  We hold at this stage if the above set  required frequent servicing then it can be presumed that it is defective. If a defective set is supplied  a consumer is entitled to get refund of the price of the article or to replace a  new set or refund  purchase price  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 above set which was purchased  by the complainant  had developed defects and the O.Ps engineers are   repeatedly attempts  to restore  its regular functioning  but  not made perfect running condition    of the above set till  date.

At  this stage this forum observed   the interest of justice  would met if  the  O.P. No. 1 & 2 intimate the same to the O.P. No.3(Manufacturer)  for early  compliance  of the above order as the O.P. No.3 (Manufacturer)  has not appeared before the forum inspite of  receipt of notice from this forum. 

 

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

 

                                                ORDER.

In  resultant  the complaint petiton stands allowed against the O.Ps.

The O.P No.3 (Manufacturer) is    ordered to  take back the  Smartron mobile set purchased by the complainant   and refund  the price of the  mobile set  a sum  Rs.8,999/- to the complainant.  The O.P. No.3  is directed to pay Rs.1,500/- towards compensation and cost to the complainant.

Further  the O.P. No. 1 & 2 (Dealer)  are directed to refer the matter to the O.P. No.3(Manufacturer) for early compliance of the above order and co-operate the complainant for better co-ordination with the O.P.  No. 3  to provide satisfying service  for which he is entitled.

The O.Ps are ordered  to comply the above direction within 45 days  from the date of receipt of this order.    Service the copies of the order  to the parties.

 

Dictated and corrected by me

Pronounced on this                17^th. day of      July, 2018.

 

 

MEMBER.                             MEMBER.                                         PRESIDENT.