Ranjit Bisoi filed a consumer case on 08 May 2018 against The Manager, Health AMP Happines Ltd in the Rayagada Consumer Court. The case no is CC/57/2017 and the judgment uploaded on 07 Aug 2018.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, RAYAGADA,
STATE: ODISHA.
C.C. Case No. 57/ 2017. Date. 8 . 05 . 2018.
P R E S E N T .
Dr. Aswini Kumar Mohapatra, President
Sri GadadharaSahu, Member.
Smt.PadmalayaMishra,. Member
Sri Ranjit Bisoi, At: Raniguda Farm, Near L& T office, Po/ Dist:Rayagada, State: Odisha. …….Complainant
Vrs.
1.The Manager, Health amp, Happiness Pvt.Ltd., Ware house Address:SND Ware house, Shed No. C1 Door No. 4/195, Redhills-Ambattur Road, Puzhal Village-600062. Chennai, Tamilnadu,
2.The Manager, Regd. Office Health amp: Hapiness Private Ltd., N-226, Lower GF, Greater Kailash, New Delhi- 110048.
3.The Manager, Hare Agency Authorised Service centre, Motorla & Lenovo Co. Singh Plaza, Besides Kedarson, B.K.Road, Dolamundai, Cuttack- 753 001.
4. The Manager, Service centre, 138-Hara Agency, Cuttack, Singh Plaza, Besides Kedarson, B.K.Road, Dolamundai, Cuttack- 753 001.
5.The Manager, Motorola Mobility India Private Limited is situated at 12th. Floor, Tower-D, DLF cyber Greens, DLF Cyber City, Gurgaon, Haryana- 122002
Opposite parties.
For the Complainant:- Self.
For the O.Ps:- Set exparte.
JUDGMENT
The curx of the case is that the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service against afore mentioned O.Ps for non refund of mobile price within warranty period for which the complainant sought for redressal of the grievances raised by the complainant.
On being noticed the O.Ps neither entering in to appear before the forum nor filed their written version inspite of more than 7 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.
From the records it reveals that, there is no dispute that the complainant had purchased a mobile set Model No. Motorola XT-165003 Retail WHT, IN-DS- 64 GB style cap inter alia IMEI No.354110071094899 from the O.P. No.1 by paying a sum of Rs. 39,999/- with Invoice No. #FOYQK03017-00056996 dt. 09.12.2016 with one year warranty. But unfortunately after some months of its purchase the above set found defective and not functioning i.e. such as Set over heat, contacts and apps open slow and not functioning with other problems. The complainant complained the O.Ps for necessary repair in turn the OPs paid deaf ear. The complainant further approached the O.Ps for return the money which he spent but for no use.
From the records it is seen that, the complainant has filed Xerox copy of purchase bill which is marked as Annexure-I. Hence it is abundantly clear that, the complainant had purchased the above set from the O.P.
This forum further observed when the complainant found defective of the above mobile he immediately approached the O.P. No. 3 (Service Centre) on Dt. 20.3.2017 and O.P. No.4 (Service centre ) on Dt. 28.3.2017 (copies of the service record is in the file marked as Annexure-2 & 3). The complainant argued during the course of hearing that inspite of repeated approaches to the O.Ps no action has been taken for replace or refund the mobile price.
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 with in some month of use. As the OPs deliberately lingering to file their written version or any other documents after lapses of above 1(One) year, 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 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 . 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 stands allowed in part on exparte against the O.Ps.
The O.Ps. 1,2,5 directed to return back the defective product from the complainant by paying the price of the above mobile set a sum of Rs. 39,999/- besides to pay an amount of Rs.1,000/- towards cost of litigation .
The O.Ps 3 & 4 are directed to refer the matter to the O.Ps 1,2,5 for early compliance of the above order.
The entire directions shall be carried out with in 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.
Service the copies of the order to the parties free of cost.
Dictated and corrected by me
Pronounced on this 8th. day of May, 2018.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.