Orissa

Rayagada

CC/69/2020

Sri Ranjit Bacheli - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager,-cum-Propritor, Malati Cell Shop - Opp.Party(s)

Self

25 Nov 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.69/2020                                      Date.   25.11. . 2021.

 

P R E S E N T .

 

Sri   Gopal   Krishna   Rath,                                               President.

Smt.Padmalaya  Mishra,.                                                 Member

 

Sri   Ranjit  Kumar  Bacheli, At: Misson Compound, Infront of  Civil Judge Court,  Po: Rayagada,  Dist:Rayagada   (Odisha).  765 001. 

Cell No.9437643567.                                           …. Complainant.

Versus.

1.The  Propritor,  Malati   Cell   Shope. At: Kapilash  Road, Po/Dist:Rayagada(Odisha) Cell No. 9777316666.

2.The  Managing  Director,  I  Ball   Phone  Head office, 87,89, Mistry  Industrial Complex, MIDC  Cross Road A, Andheri  East, Behind  Tunga International  Hotel,  Mumbai-  400093.

3.The Care Service Centre,  I Ball  authorized Service  Centre,  Rashmi Electronics  and computer,  Sri Sai  Complex,  Room No. B 19, Gandhi Nagar, Main Road,  Sai Baba  Temple,  Po:Berhampur, 760002, (Odisha) Cell No. 6802220131.                                                        … 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  SPK Portale Karaoke  Barrel,  within the warranty  period  for which  the complainant  sought for redressal of the grievances raised by the complainant.  The brief  facts of the case  are summarized  here  under.

That the  complainant had purchased  a SPK Portable Karaoke Barrel, USB/SD/BT/V2.o.iBall  1800488000844446  from the  O.P. No.2  through  the O.P. No. 1  vide invoice  No. 878 Dt. 3.;5.2020  on payment  consideration  amount a sum of Rs.4,350/-  with a warranty  card  for one year  on the products.  With in the warranty period the above  product  found defect and the complainant  had intimated to the O.Ps from time to time for rectification  of the above product,  But the O.Ps  are paid deaf ear for some or other plea. Hence this C.C. case  has  filed  by the complainant  and prays the District Commision  direct the O.Ps to return back the amount of the above  product  with  Rs.5,000/-  towards mental  agony and such other relief as the District Commission deems fit and proper for the best interest of justice.

Upon  Notice, the  O.Ps.  neither entering in to appear before the District commission  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  1(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  from the complainant set the case  exparte against the O.Ps. The action of the O.Ps   are against the principles of  natural justice as envisaged  in the C.P. Act. Hence the O.Ps  were    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  against the O.Ps

          Heard  arguments from the   complainant..   We perused the complaint petition and the document filed by   the   complainant..

This District Commission   examined the entire material on record  and given  a thoughtful consideration  to the  arguments  advanced  before us by  the  parties touching the points both on the facts  as well as on  law.

          FINDINGS.

From the records it reveals that, the complainant had purchased   a SPK Portable Karaoke Barrel, USB/SD/BT/V2.o.iBall  1800488000844446  from the  O.P. No.2  through  the O.P. No. 1  vide invoice  No. 878 Dt. 3.;5.2020  on payment  consideration  amount a sum of Rs.4,350/-  with a warranty  card  for one year  on the products (copies   of the  tax  invoice is available    in the file  which is marked as Annexure-I).

.                                                                      

But unfortunately after delivery  with in few months the above  set found defective and not functioning  properly. 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.Ps .    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.Ps  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.Ps.   The  commission 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  and the complainant is entitled to get relief.

            On appreciation of the evidences adduce before it, the commission 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 expartee.

            The O.P No.2 (Manufacturer)   is  directed  to refund  the  purchase price of the  SPK Portable Karaoke Barrel a sum of Rs.4,350/-    along with  Rs.1,500/- towards  compensation and cost to the complainant.

          The  O.Ps  No.1 (Dealer) &  O.P. No. 3 (Service centre) are directed to refer the matter to the O.P. No.2(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. Serve the order  to the  parties free of cost.

Dictated  and corrected  by me.

Pronounced   on    this 25th           .day    of       November  ,2021.

 MEMBER                                                                                            PRESIDENT