Orissa

Rayagada

CC/370/2016

Amit Kumar Sahoo - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, Ferns icon Level - Opp.Party(s)

Self

14 Nov 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA,

STATE:  ODISHA.

C.C. Case  No. 370 / 2015.                                           Date.  14.11 . 2017

P R E S E N T .

Dr. Aswini  Kumar Mohapatra,                       President.

Sri  Gadadhara Sahu,                                                                      Member.

Smt. Padmalaya  Mishra,                                                              Member.

 

Sri  Amit Kumar Sahoo,  Hathi Pathar Road, 2^nd. Line, Po/ Dist:Rayagada  (Odisha).765 001,  Cell No. 7681091409.                                                                                                                                                                          …. Complainant.

Versus.

1.The Manager,  Ferns Icon, Level-2, Doddenakundi  Village, Marathahalli Outer Ring Road, K.R. Puram Habli, Bangalore, 560037, Karnataka(India).

2.The Manager, Technologies(India),pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 3,Phase-II, Sipcot  Industrial park,  Sandavaellur ‘c’ village, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kancheepuram  Dist.

Tamilnadu-602106. (India).                               … Opposite parties.

For the Complainant:-Self..

For the O.P No.1 .  :- Sri Ram  Prasad Patra, Advocate, Rayagada(Odisha).

For the O.P. No.2:- exparte.

.

JUDGMENT

                The  present dispute 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 the mobile  price.  The brief facts of the case  has summarised here under.

 

1.            The        complainant   has  placed  through   Flipkart  for sending    the mobile set   i.e.   Lenova A7020a48, colour- gold vide product No. PA330073  IN   and the complainant has  received  the  said  mobile set   on Dt. 22.8.2016   from the    O.P. No.2.    After  2 months  above  set   had not functioned  properly .  Inspite  of   contact  with the O.Ps   several   times for repair or replace  the above set  did  not heard   and   turned    deaf  ear  to the request  of the complainant  with in the warranty period.  Hence this  case.  The  complainant prays the forum direct the O.Ps   to   refund  the price of mobile set and such other  relief as the hon’ble forum deems fit  and proper  for the best interest of justice.

2.            On being  noticed the O.P No.1  appeared through  their learned  counsel   and filed written version  jointly.   The    O.P No.1    submitted that  all the averments made and contentions  raised  by  the complainant  in the complaint are denied,  as being  false  and   baseless, unless  specifically  admitted hereto.  All the allegations against the  O.P are denied.  The complainant is not entitled to any  cost or compensation. The O.P No.1     prays   the  forum  to dismiss the complaint petition  for the best interest of   justice

3.         The O.P. No. 2 did not appear pursuant to the  notice  and was proceeded  exparte. In view of justice as contemplated U/S- 13(2)(b)(ii)of C.P. Act, 1986 as the statutory period  for filing  written version was over to close the case with in the time frame permitted by the C.P. Act.

                Heard  arguments of the complainant  and from the learned counsel for the O.Ps.  Perused the record, documents, filed by the parties.  Both the parties have made arguments touching the points both on the facts as well as on law.

                                                          FINDINGS.

4.       On perusal of the record it is revealed  the O.Ps  submitted   that      they are ready to give the service as per the conditions of the warranty given to the said set.   The complainant submitted that the O.Ps  had not given good service as per the warranty  condition  when he approached.   The Complainant  argued that the O.Ps have sold a defective  mobile set  to the complainant and claimed that the O.Ps caused deficiency in service and deprived of the complainant of enjoyment of the mobile set  since the date of  its purchase  which caused mental agony and harassment to the complainant. During the course of hearing the  complainant has  filed  invoice copy  No. chn puzhal 0120160800173714  Dt.22.8.2016 which was issued by the  O.Ps  towards purchasing of the  mobile set   and taken Rs.11,999/-  from the complainant which is marked as Annexure-I.

This forum found that the complainant is  a consumer within the definition of the C.P. Act, the breach of contract  even after receipt of the consideration for the  same on the  part  of the O.Ps are deficiency  of  service and  as such  the complainant   is  entitled to the reliefs claimed in the petition.

               Now we have to see whether there was any negligence of the OPs  in providing  after sale service  to the complainant as alleged ?

We perused the documents filed by the complainant.  Since the mobile set found defective after its purchase    and   the complainant  informed the OPs regarding the defect but the  OPs   failed to remove  the defect . At this stage we hold that  if the mobile set  require  servicing since  the date of its purchase, then it can be presumed that it is defective one and if the defective mobile set  is sold to the complainant , the complainant is entitled to get refund of the price of the article or to replace a new  one or  remove the defects  and also the   complainant is entitled  and has a right to claim compensation and cost to meet his mental agony , financial loss.  In the instant case  as it is appears that the mobile set  which was purchased by the complainant 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 mobile set  with an expectation to have the effective benefit of use of the article. In this case, the complainant was deprived of getting beneficial use of the article and deprived of using the mobile set  for such  and the defects were not removed by the O.ps who  know the defects from time to time from the complainant.

 

In the present  case the O.Ps are jointly and severally  liable.

 

 

Hence, in our view the complainant has right to claim compensation to meet  his mental agony, financial loss. Hence,  it is ordered.

 

                                                                        ORDER.

4.       In the result with these  observations, findings, discussion the complaint petition is allowed  in part on contest against the O.P No.1 and exparte against O.P. No.2.

The O.Ps are ordered to take back their product  and  refund price of the Mobile  set   a sum of Rs. Rs.11,999/- to the complainant.  The O.Ps are further ordered to pay Rs.500.00 (Rupees five hundred) only towards litigation  expenses.

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

Dictated  and  corrected  by  me.

                Pronounced on this        14th            Day    of     November,                2017.

 

 

Member                                   Member.                                                                      President