Orissa

Rayagada

CC/2/2018

Sri P. Vikash - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager Furture Mobile - Opp.Party(s)

Self

01 Sep 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA,

STATE:  ODISHA.

C.C. Case  No.        02        / 2018.                    Date. 1    . 9   . 2018.

P R E S E N T .

Dr. Aswini  Kumar Mohapatra,                   President

Sri Gadadhara Sahu,                                                    Member.

Smt.Padmalaya Mishra,.                                              Member

 

Sri P.Vikash, S/O: P.Venkataramana, Kandara Street,    Po/Dist.Rayagada,State:  Odisha. Pin No. 765 001.       Cell No. 9439286880.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      …….Complainant

Vrs.

1.The Manager,  Future Mobile,  #402, Building No. 3D Dheeraj  Upvan-3,  Borivali east  Siddharth  Nagar, Greater Mumbai, Mumbai,  State:Moaharastra-400066.

 

2.The  Manager, Oppo Mobile India Ltd., Sochana Gurgaon Road, Sector-49, Gurgaon, Hariyana- 122 001.                                                                       .…..Opp.Parties

Counsel for the parties:                                 

For the complainant: - Self.

For the O.Ps No.1 :- Set exparte..

For the OP. No. 2 :-Sri R.K.Senapati, Advocate,              

                                                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  Oppo  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   OPPO F1S (Grey, 64 GB)  from the O.Ps. through  on line Flipkart bearing invoice No.#FOZR00917-00012598  Dt.23.12.2016  and order ID No.OD407919268478521000 by paying  an amount a sum of Rs.17,490/-.  The above set IMEI No. mentioned in the tax invoice bearing IMEI No.863795034733619 and No.863795034733601.  The  above set   found defective  within the warranty  period i.e. Auto on off and not working properly. The complainant complained the matter to the  service centre of the O.P. but the service centre inspite of  repeated attempt to rectify the same  but not rectified the same problem.   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.P No.1 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.Ps.  Observing lapses of around 8 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.1. The action of the O.P No.1  is against the principles of  natural justice as envisaged  under section  13(2) (b)(ii) of the Act. Hence the O.P. No.1  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 learned counsel for the O.Ps No.2   filed written version through their learned counsel  inter alia  challenged  the maintainability of the  petition before the forum. The averments made in the  petition are  all false, and O.Ps 2    deny   each and every allegation made in the petition. The O.Ps 2   taking one  & other grounds in the written version   sought to dismiss the complaint as it is not maintainable  under the C.P. Act, 1986.  The O.Ps 2     prays the forum to dismiss the complaint petition  for the best interest of justice.

The O.Ps appeared and defend the case.  Heard arguments from the  learned counsel for  the  O.Ps and from the complainant.    Perused the record, documents,  written version filed by the parties. 

This forum  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, there is no dispute  that  the complainant  had purchased  a   OPPO F1S (Grey, 64 GB)  from the O.Ps. through  on line Flipkart bearing invoice No.#FOZR00917-00012598  Dt.23.12.2016  and order ID No.OD407919268478521000 by paying  an amount a sum of Rs.17,490/- (Copies of the  bill is in the file which is marked as Annexure-I)..  The above set IMEI No. mentioned in the tax invoice bearing IMEI No.863795034733619 and No.863795034733601.  The  above set   found defective  within the warranty  period i.e. Auto on off and not working properly. The complainant complained the matter to the  service centre of the O.P. but the service centre inspite of  repeated attempt to rectify the same  but not rectified the same problem.   Now the above set is unused.  But  no  action has been taken by the O.Ps till date. Hence the above C.C. case

The O.P No. 2  in their written version contended that  the warranty of the alleged mobile set  had expired on Dt.  22.12.2017 and the complainant has filed this case  on Dt. 2.1.2018  before the forum against  the  O.Ps after  one  year of use of said alleged product for replacement. Therefore  the case is not maintainable  and which is abuse of process of law and liable to  be dismissed on this ground alone.     The O.P No. 2   vehemently argued  that on Dt.19.12.2017 the service personnel of the O.P.   had repaired  the above set  by replacing the defective parts  by a new one within   warranty  period.  Thereafter if the defect was not removed   from his  above set then why  he has not  lodged complain either before the O.Ps service centre  or before customer care  through on line immediately after repair.  As such it is assumed that all defects  must be removed from the above set.  The complainant has neither produced  any evidence nor any expert opinion report for her allegation. There was neither any deficiency in service committed by the O.P. No.2 nor by the service centre, Vizag  Further there is no chance of any wrong service  provide by the service personnel  of the O.P. No.2 to repair the above set. Because all the defects of above set  are  rectified  by replacing the new spares against the defective spares only.

In the present case the O.P. No.2   further contended  that  the complainant has not filed any material evidence on record  which says that the said  mobile set handset was having some inherent defect. The complainant has also not furnished any document which establishes  the fact that the complainant has made  number of attempts to rectify  the mobile set in question was having  some defect. In the absence of any strong proof, the present  complaint is liable to be dismissed.

This forum  observed there is no iota of evidence regarding the  complaints made  to the service centre  from time to time for rectification of the above set  filed by the complainant before the forum.  If he found  some  defects in the above set  he could have lodged a complaint to the service centre of the O.Ps and it is always open to  the Oppo mobile customers.  Had there been some mischief or malafied  on the part of the service centre officials of the  O.Ps  he should intimate the same to the O.P No.2(manufacturer) immediately through E-Mail.

This  forum    relied citations  which are mentioned here.

  it is settled proposition of law as held in the case of  Ravneet Singh Bagga Vrs. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines, 1999(3) CPJ- 28 (SC), it was  held that the burden of proving  the  deficiency in service  is upon the   person who alleges it.  In case of   bona  fide    disputes to willful fault,  imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality,  nature or manner of performance in the service can be informed. If on facts it is  found that the person or authority rendering service had taken all  precautions and considered all relevant facts and circumstances in the  course of the transaction and that their  action or the final decision was  in good faith, it can not be said that there  had been any deficiency in service in the case in hand the complainant has failed to prove any  deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.

Further in the case of   Maruti Udyog Ltd. Vrs. Susheel  Kumar Gabgotra and others (AIR-2006)S.C 1586 where in the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed “Warranty conditions clearly refers to replacement of defective part not the  car – Not a case of silence of a contract of sale to warranty”.

Again   in the case of Bajaj Tempo Ltd Vrs. Shri  Ajwant Singh & Another reported in  2014(3) CPR- 724  N.C.,  the  Hon’ble National Commission opined that “Manufacturing defect must be proved by expert opinion”.

Further in the case of Sandeep Bhalla Vrs.  Ashoka Electronics Pvt. Ltd.  IV(2011) CPJ 138(NC). The Ho’ble National Commission held that, if any product works smoothly 7-8 months  then it can not held to  be  defective. 

The O.P. No. 2  vehemently argued that in this case there is no defect in the  mobile set of the complainant, but the complainant has filed this fabricated complaint only to  tarnish the reputation of the O.P No.2 after warranty period    and to secure the unlawful gains from the O.Ps.

This forum agree with the views taken by the O.Ps. in their written version.  We  do not  think  proper to go  into merit of this case.

Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances, we are of the decisive opinion that the instant case  is devoid  of merit.  Further  this forum do not find any other legal issue involved in the matter. In the circumstances, we do not see any reason which would call  for our interference.

So  to meet the  ends of justice    the following order is passed.

                                                              O R D E R

            In  resultant the complaint petition  stands  disposed off on contest against the O.Ps. 

The O.P No. 2   is  directed to rectify the defects  of the above  set free of cost  if the complainant  approached.  the O.Ps  to rectify the defect of his   set  and shall provide all sort of after sale service to the complainant as per the terms and conditions of the  warranty of the afore said   set.   There is  no order as to cost and compensation.

            Dictated and corrected by me.

            Pronounced in the open forum on        1^st.          day  of    September, 2018.

MEMBER                               MEMBER                                                       PRESIDENT