Orissa

Rayagada

CC/164/2017

Sri E. Bhaskar Rao - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, Doordarshan - Opp.Party(s)

Self

04 Dec 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA,

STATE:  ODISHA.

C.C. Case  No.        164        / 2017.                            Date.    1  . 11  . 2018.

P R E S E N T .

Dr. Aswini  Kumar Mohapatra,                   President

Sri  Gadadhara  Sahu,                                                  Member.

Smt. Padmalaya  Mishra,.                                            Member

 

Sri E.Bhaskar Rao, Near Rama Talkies,   Po/Dist:Rayagada   (Odisha). Cell No. 9438452003. Samsung  service centre.                                                                                                                         …. Complainant.

Versus.

1.The Manager, Doordarsan,  Rayagada(Odisha).

2.The  Manager, Vivo Mobile  India Pvt. Ltd.,  TEC 1 & TEC 2, World Trade Centre, Plot No. TZ- 13A, Techzone, (IT park), Greater Noida, Utter Pradesh, 201308.

3.The Care officer,   Vivo Mobile  India Pvt. Ltd.,  0-16-Ground Floor, Lajpath Nagar-II, New Delhi 110024.

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

                That  the complainant  had purchased  a  Y55L  (Vivo mobile)  bearing  IMEI  No. 862588031745673 from the O.P. No.1 on Dt.03.12.2016  on  payment  of amount a sum of Rs.12,-000/-. The O.Ps. have   sold  the  said set to the complainant providing  one year warranty period  vide Retail invoice No.44996 Dt. 03.12.2016  . The  above set   found defective  within the warranty  period i.e. touch screen not working properly. The complainant complained the matter to the  service centre of the O.P. but the service centre refused to repair the same for some or other plea. Inspite of repeated  approach   to the service centre for rectification  of the defects but the service centre paid deaf ear.   Now the above set is unused.  But  no  action has been taken by the O.Ps till date. Hence this complaint petition  filed by the complainant and prays the forum direct the O.Ps to refund  purchase  price of the above mobile set and such other relief as the hon’ble 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  5 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 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 has purchased a Y55L  (Vivo mobile)    from the O.P No.1 by paying a sum of Rs.12,000/-  vide Retail invoice No.44996 Dt. 03.12.2016. But unfortunately after delivery with in  warranty period the above  set found defective and not functioning. The complainant complained the OPs for necessary repair in turn the OPs  paid deaf  ear.  

.               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.  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 witn in warranty period  of purchase. As the OPs deliberately lingering to file their written version or any other documents after lapses of above 08 months, and observing the present situation, and nothing adversary to the complainant as adduced by the OP. 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.2 & 3 are directed to return back the defective product from the complainant  inter alia  replace the Vivo mobile set   with a new one with fresh warranty without charging any extra amount.    There is no order as to cost and compensation.  

            The O.P. No. 1   is  ordered to refer the matter to the O.P. No. 2 & 3  for early compliance of the above order.

            The entire directions shall be carried out with in 45 days from the  date of receipt   of this order.   Copies be served to the parties  free of cost.

Dictated and  corrected by me..    Pronounced in the open forum on    1^st.     day of    November, 2018.

 

MEMBER                                                                                 MEMBER                                                 PRESIDENT