Smt. N. Swati filed a consumer case on 07 Feb 2019 against The Manager, Intex Technology India Ltd., in the Rayagada Consumer Court. The case no is CC/57/2018 and the judgment uploaded on 09 Apr 2019.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, RAYAGADA,
STATE: ODISHA.
C.C. Case No. 57 / 2018. Date. 13 . 2 . 2019.
P R E S E N T .
Dr. Aswini Kumar Mohapatra, President
Sri Gadadhara Sahu, Member.
Smt. Padmalaya Mishra,. Member
Smt. N.Swati, Brahmin Street, Po/Dist: Rayagada , 765 0001 (Odisha).
Cell No. 9178742938, 18763936102. …. Complainant.
Versus.
1.Manager, Intex Technology(India) Pvt Ltd. ,Okhla Industrial Area, New Delhi,110020.
2. The Manager, Service centre, Rayagda(Odisha).
3.The Manager, Omm collection, Rayagada(Odisha). … 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 INTEX Aqua A 47 bearing IMEI No. 911601602724224 from the O.P No. 1 on Dt.03.02.2018 on payment of amount a sum of Rs.3,800/- vide cash bill No. 526 Dt. 3.2.2018. The O.Ps. have sold the said set to the complainant providing one year warranty period. The above set found defective within the warranty period. During the month of April,2018 the above set found defect and not in working conditon. The complainant feel there is manufacturing defect in the set. The complainant complained the matter to the Service centre. Inspite of repeated contact the service centre refused to rectify or replace the same. Now the above set is unused. But no action has been taken by the O.Ps till date. Hence this case. The complainant prays the forum direct the O.Ps Direct the O.Ps refund the price of the Intex mobile set and 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 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.Ps. 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, the complainant has purchased a INTEX Aqua A 47 bearing IMEI No. 911601602724224 from the O.P No. 1 on Dt.03.02.2018 on payment of amount a sum of Rs.3,800/- vide cash bill No. 526 Dt. 3.2.2018. But unfortunately after using the same 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. not heard
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 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.1 (Manufacturer) is directed to return back the defective product from the complainant inter alia to refund price of INTEX Aqua A 47 a sum of Rs.3,800/- besides to pay Rs.1,000/- towards litigation expenses.
The O.P. No. 2 & 3 are ordered to refer the matter to the O.P. No. 1 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 13 th. . day of February, 2019.
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.