Orissa

Rayagada

CC/60/2018

Sanklap Mahapatro - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, Green Mobiles - Opp.Party(s)

Self

01 Jan 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA,

STATE:  ODISHA.

C.C. Case  No. 60 / 2018.                               Date.   01    .    01   . 2019.

P R E S E N T .

Dr. Aswini  Kumar Mohapatra,                                      President

Sri Gadadhara  Sahu,                                                        Member.

Smt. Padmalaya  Mishra,.                                               Member

 

Sri Sankalp Mohapatra,  C/O: Padmalaya  Mishra, Advocate,  Near Jagannath Complex, Collectorate  Road,  Po/Dist: Rayagada , 765 001  (Odisha).

Cell No. 7978076647.                                                      …. Complainant.

Versus.

1.Manager, Green Mobiles, WB- 10/11, Renaissance Logistics park,  Near Padgha,  Off. N.H.-3,  TalukaBhiwandi,  District:  Thane, 421  302, State:Moharastra.   

2.The Manager, Amazon Development India Pvt. Ltd., Brigade  Gateway, 8^th. Floor,  26/1, Dr. Rajkumar Road,  Malleshwaram(W), Bangalore-560055, Karnataka(India).                                                                                    … Opposite parties.

For the Complainant:- Self.

For the O.Ps:- Set exparte.

JUDGEMENT

            The  factual matrix of the case is that  the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps    for non refund of price towards      Redmi -4 black  64  GB mobile set   a sum of Rs.9,999/-   to the complainant for which  the complainant  sought for redressal of the grievances raised by the complainant

             That  the complainant has ordered  the  O.P. No.1 through Amazon.in for   purchase  of   Redmi -4 black  64  GB  from the O.P  No.1   and made order bearing No. 408-3960840-3050732    Dt.05.04.2018   on  payment  of amount a sum of Rs.9,999/- vide  Invoice No. BOM4-2611, MH-BOM4-167791461-1819 Dt. 6.4.2018. On opening the  packet  when the complainant seen the product that  was according to his order so far  he is  not interested i.e  to use the  mobile set as   the size of the  mobile  set was too small size.  So the complainant immediately  wanted  to  change  or refund  the price  so telephoned the O.Ps to refund the amount,  but the O.Ps have denied.  That there is a mandatory provision as a goodwill gesture  with in 15 days the O.Ps shall  refund the price of the  mobile set  if the complainant not satisfied the  goods sent by him to the complainant from the date of receipt of above set . In this case  the complainant  is not satisfied  which is sent by the O.Ps and the matter complained   by the complainant within 15 days. Hence this  C.C. case   direct the O.Ps to refund the  price a sum of Rs. 9,999/- of the Redmi- 4 mobile set and to pay  compensation, cost  inter alia such other  relief as the  forum deems fit and proper in the 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  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 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  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 Redmi -4 black  64  GB   mobile set from the O.P. No.1 by paying cash payment of Rs. 9,999/- having  one year warranty  bearing  tax invoice No. BOM4-2611, MH-BOM4-167791461-1819 Dt. 6.4.2018. (copies of the  tax invoice is in the file which is marked as Annexure-I).  

It is observed in the present case in hand  on opening the  packet  when the complainant seen the product   that  is not according to his order so far he is  not interested i.e to use the   mobile set as   the size of the  mobile   set was too small size,  So the complainant immediately wanted  to change the sets telephoned the O.Ps to change the sets  or  refund the amount,  but the O.Ps  was denied.  That there is a mandatory provision as a goodwill gesture  with in 15 days the O.Ps shall  refund the price of the  mobile set  if the complainant not satisfied the  goods sent by him to the complainant from the date of receipt of above set. Admittedly  In this case  the complainant  was not satisfied  which was sent by the O.Ps and the matter complained   by the complainant within 15 days  but the O.Ps  failed to refund the price of the above mobile   for which the complainant sustained loss on account of the defective  set also  could not use it for such a long time.  The Opposite parties are not rendering proper service to a bonafied customer and this is  undoubtedly speaks of their callousness  and deficiency in service.  Their attitude  shows the  impression that the  customers are  at their mercy and they should run from pillar to post according to their whims and pleasure.

 That for their deficiency in service the complainant being a consumer is subject to mental tension and financial loss.  That due to delay at  the hands of the O.Ps the complainant unnecessarily put to undue harassment, mental agony, heavy loss and the OPs are liable to pay compensation for damages and the complainant seeks compensation towards damages . In terms of Section-14 of the C.P. Act, 1986 the  O.Ps  was obliged  to compensate  the complainant as  to loss or injury suffered  by him due to its negligence.

On examining the whole transactions, it is pertinent to mention here that, there is a 15 days time to both the  parties  to carry out the  return of  the goods  and refund  of price. As the OPs deliberately lingering to file their written version or any other documents after lapses of above 8 months, and observing the present situation, and nothing adversary to the complainant as adduced by the OPs. The forum relying on the version of the complainant is of the view that, the O.Ps have not  carry out their terms and condition 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.Ps  are directed to return back the defective product from the complainant  by paying the price of the  Redmi -4 black  64  GB   mobile set a sum of Rs. 9,999/- besides  to pay an amount of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand)only  towards  compensation  for mental agony  and  litigation cost to the complainant.

                The entire directions shall be carried out with in 30 days from the  date of receipt   of this order.

                The interim order passed on Dt.19.4.2018  made final with the  above  observation.

                A copy of this  order as per the statutary requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charges.

                Dictated and  corrected  by  me.

                Pronounced in the open forum on       01st    .  day   of    January, 2019.

 

MEMBER                                                                                 MEMBER                                                 PRESIDENT