Orissa

Rayagada

CC/20/2019

Maruti Electronic Throug The Propritor - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager Intex Technology India Pvt. Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Self

07 Apr 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

POST  /  DIST: Rayagada,  STATE:  ODISHA,  Pin No. 765001.

                                                      ******************

C.C.case  No.     20      / 2019.                              Date.          7. 4. 2021

P R E S E N T .

Sri   Gadadhara  Sahu,                                                      President.

Smt.Padmalaya  Mishra,.                                                 Member

 

 

Sri Maruti Electronics, Through the proprietor, RajanalaNankatNageswar Rao, Near Hotel Swagath, New Colony,  Po/   Dist:Rayagada  (Odisha).                                                                                                                                           …. Complainant.

Versus.

1.TheManager, Intex Technologies (India) Ltd.,  At: D-18/2, Okhla Industrial Area phase-II, New Delhi-110020.          

2.The Manager, C&F Agent,  Plot No. 21/A, Bapuji Nagar, Bhubaneswar, Odisha.                                                                                                                                      .…..Opp.Parties

Counsel for the parties:                         

For the complainant: - Sri Mahesh Patnaik and associates, Rayagada.

For the O.Ps   :- Set exparte.

JUDGEMENT

          The  crux of the case is that  the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps for   non  refund of  invested  amount towards maintenance of service centre of Intex company a sum of Rs.2,50,000/-for which  the complainant  sought compensation  inter alia  for redressal of the grievances raised by the complainant. The brief facts of the case are summarized here under.

The facts of the complaint  in brief is that   the complainant   is an authorized prepaid distributor  of OP 1   and the complainant and the OP 1 have entered  into agreement at Rayagada to deal with the business  and the OP 1 has to pay for the services rendered by the complainant for marketing. While the matter stood the OP 1  without notice to the complainant handed over the  entire distribution business  to the OP 2 on 27.06.2014. As per the agreement  if the agreement can be terminated by either party  by giving 30 days advance notice in writing and the company shall return all the customers property and settle all the accounts of the customers  and the service center but the company violated  its terms and condition and  liable to compensate the damages  made to  the complainant.   The complainant has invested Rs.2,00,000/-  and marketed the product by spending about Rs.50,000/-. The OP 1 has  failed to give the assured services to the complainant  and caused loss and damages by putting the complainant to mental agony and monetary  hazard and therefore the OP 1 is liable to compensate the complainant  to the tune of Rs.2,50,000/- .Hence, prayed to direct the Ops to pay Rs.2,00,000/-  which is the invested amount of the complainant, Rs.50,000/-  towards the marketing of the product of the Ops, Rs.50,000/-  towards pending dues and Rs.2,50,000/-  towards compensation for sufferings. Hence, this complaint. Hence, 

On being noticed the O.Ps  appeared through their learned counsel Sri S.Nagabhusan& associates and took adjournments thereafter neither entering in to appear before the forum nor filed their  written version though availing  of more than  05  adjournments. Complainant consequently filed his memo and prayed 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 from  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 were  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.    

        Heard from the complainant at length.

        We therefore proceed to dispose of the case, on its merit. We perused the complaint petition and the document filed by the complainant.

                                        FINDINGS.

On perusal  of the petition  it is  revealed  that the complainant  was an  authorized  prepaid  Distributor to deal  with  the distribution  in the business of rendering telecommunication services  including cellular mobiles service as “TOP up” or cell phone refil that will enable people to receive the refill and extras by the O.P.   The O.P. was to pay  for the services   rendered by the complainant for making the services of the product of the O.P.   and the complainant marketing the property of the O.P. Undisputedly the complainant had made D.D. at Andhra Bank a sum of Rs.20,000/- in favour of the O.P No.1 vide D.D.No.134993 Dt.4.6.2014 for opening of  service centre at Rayagada(Odisha)(copies of the D.D. is in the file which is marked as Annexure-I).  The complainant very successfully marketed  and given services of the product and the business of the O.P.   by investing  money  in opening of commercial establishment etc. for self employment obtaining loan from the friends and relatives and the accounts was submitted to the O.P. While the above matter stood thus the O.P. No.1   in clear violation of the agreement  without prior  notice to the complainant ended the agreement without  settled the matter  and that to without considering the establishment cost and expenses made by the complainant and the accounts are not finalized and the dues pending    remained unpaid by the O.P. 

The main grievance of the complainant is that  after discontinued of the service centre during the year 2016   till  date   the O.Ps have not finalized the account settlement between the parties in spite of  repeated phone call. and when asked the reason the O.Ps. havesilent. Hence the  C.C. petition filed by the complainant  to get  the  above  amount with interest ,  compensation and cost

ORDER

 

                        The Opp.Party No. 1 is directed to refund the  invested amount of Rs.2,50,000/- to the complainant within 30 days from the date of  receipt of this order, failing which the OP 1 is liable to pay 9% interest on the above amount from the date of default.  Parties are left to bear own cost.

 

Dictated and corrected by me.  Pronounced on this          .    Day of   November,  2019.

 

Member.                                                             Member.                                                             President