Orissa

Rayagada

CC/52/2020

Sri Giri Dhar Patro - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, Darshita Aashiyana Pvt. Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Self

07 May 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

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

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

C.C.case  No.     52      / 2020.                              Date.      7    . 4. 2021

P R E S E N T .

Sri   Gadadhara  Sahu,                                                      President.

Smt.Padmalaya  Mishra,.                                                 Member

 

Sri V.Giri Dharpatra, S/O: V.Mohan Rao, Germ Kirana Shop, Opposite Hotel Swagat, New colony ,    Po/Dist:Rayagada   (Odisha). 765  001.    Cell No. 9438044032.                              …. Complainant.

Versus.

1.The Manager, Darshita Aashiyana Pvt. Ltd., GMR Airport City, Survey No. 99/1, Mamidipally Village, Shamshabad, Hyderabad, Telangana- 500108.

2.The  Vice President and Country manager, Amazon India, Brigate Gateway, 8^th. Floor, 26/1, Dr. Rajkumar Road,  Malleshwaram(W),Bangalore- 560055, Karnataka State,

3.The  Manager, X-iaami India DC, C/O: Lkeva Business Centre, 4^th. Floor, 183 to 197 & 254 to 258, Bommasandra Industrial Area, Bommasandra,  Bangalore- 562106, Karnataka state.

4.The Manager, MI Care for repairing centre,  Mobile Accessories, Servicing & spare, Andhra bank Road,  New colony, Rayagada-765 001-Odisha State.            … Opposite parties.

Counsel for the parties:                                 

For the complainant: - Self..

For the O.Ps 1 , 3 & 4  :- Set exparte..

For the  O.P. No.2:- Sri J. K.Mohapatra, Advocate,  Rayagada.

                                                          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  price  towards   mobile set which was not functioning within the warranty period. The brief facts of the case  has summarised here under.

Upon  Notice, the O.P No.1, 3 & 4  are   neither entering in to appear before the District Commission  nor filed their  written version inspite of more than  3 adjournments has been given  to them. Complainant consequently filed his memo and prayer to set exparte of the O.P No. 1, 3 & 4  .  Observing lapses of around 7  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.P No.4. The action of the O.P No.4 is against the principles of  natural justice as envisaged  under section  13(2) (b)(ii) of the Act. Hence the O.P No.4 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.

On being noticed the O.P. No. 2(Amazon)  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  No..2.  The O.P. No. 2    is  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.   No. 2 is  neither  a  ‘trader’ nor a ‘service provider’ and there does not exists any privity of contract   between the complainant and  the O.P. No.1.  The O.P. No. 2 is   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  No. 2  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 No. 2..The O.P. No. 2   in their written version relied  citations of the apex court. The O.P No.2`  prays to dismiss the complaint petition against   O.P.  No. 2  for the best  interest   of justice.

Heard from the learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 and complainant.  Perused the record filed by the parties.

The  learned counsel  for the O.P No.2 advanced arguments  vehemently touching the points both on the facts  as well as on  law.

          FINDINGS.

From the records it reveals that, the complainant had purchased a  MI of Redmi  note  8 Pro (Gamma Green, 6GB Ram, 128 GB storage) through  on line  and paid  consideration  a sum of Rs.15,998/- vide invoice  No. HYD-8-335427  Dt.7.11.2019   of the O.P. No..1  with  one year warranty (copies of  Tax invoice are in the file which are marked as Annexure-1 ). But unfortunately after delivery  with in few months the above  set found defective and not functioning. The complainant complained the O.Ps  serice centre   for necessary repair in turn the OP paid deaf ear.   The complainant further approached the O.Ps for return the money which she 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.P 1,3 & 4  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.  On  
 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 1,3 & 4   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.Ps 1,3 & 4   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 1,3 & 4 and  dismissed against the  O.P. No.2 (Amazan).

            The O.P. No.3 (Manufacturer)  is directed to return back the defective product from the complainant  by replacing  with a new one set  with fresh warranty  besides  to pay an amount of Rs.1.000/- (Rupees one thousand) towards litigation cost to the complainant.

The O.P  No.1 & 4  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 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      7^th.day of   April, 2021.

 

                                                  MEMBER                                                                                           PRESIDENT