Orissa

Rayagada

CC/109/2018

Sri G. Nageswar Rao - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, Lvoomi Inovation Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Self

12 Dec 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

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

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

C.C.case  No.       109         / 2018.                                 Date.     12    .12. 2019

P R E S E N T .

Dr. Aswini  Kumar  Mohapatra,                                     President

Sri Gadadhara  Sahu,                                                        Member.

Smt.Padmalaya  Mishra,.                                                Member

 

Sri G.Nageswar Rao, Near Uma Sankar  Theatre, Umasankar  Complex,   Po/Dist:Rayagada   (Odisha).Cell No.8895912442.                                                                                                                                           …. Complainant.

Versus.

         The Manager, IvoomiInovation Pvt. Ltd.,  D-11/55, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi- 110085

        @ivoomiindia.com.                                                                        … Opposite parties.

 

                                                           

Counsel for the parties:                                 

For the complainant: - Self..

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  replacement of Mobile during the warranty  period  for which  the complainant  sought for redressal of the grievances raised by the complainant.

The Back ground  facts in a nutshell  are that  the complainant had purchased  a mobile phone   Ivoomi 505 model  from the O.P. through  order placed on internet during the month of January,2018 on Dt. 10.1.2018  in turn the  O.P. had sent the same  through  courier service and the complainant had  received  the same   on Dt.16.01.2018 on  payment  of amount a sum of Rs.4,500/-.    The O.Ps. have   sold  the  said set to the complainant providing  one  year  warranty period . But no paper sent through this packet except mobile and mobile box. The above set   found defective  within the warranty  period after using three months. The complainant complained the matter to the  O.Ps from time to time, but  no  action has been taken by the O.Ps till date.. The defects are continued i.e. Net work problem, Camera problem, Data missing, Mobile heating, Phone Auto Restart, Most of the time dead, mobile most of the time not charging.  Now the above set is unused.  The battery of the above  mobile set is not working and no  where the battery of the above set is available to replace the same. Hence the  complaint petition filed by the complainant before the forum for redressal of his grievance as the O.Ps are not heard the  grievance of the complainant. The complainant moved from pillar to post for rectification of the above set but the O.Ps paid deaf ear. Hence this C.C. case.  The  complainant prays the forum direct   the O.Ps to  refund purchase price with compensation  and  grant such other relief  as the hon’ble forum deems fit and proper under circumstances of the case  for the best 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  15 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) years   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 are 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.

          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.

                Undisputedly the complainant had purchased  a mobile phone   Ivoomi 505 model  from the O.P. through  order placed on internet during the month of January,2018 on Dt. 10.1.2018  on  payment  of amount a sum of Rs.4,500/- vide invoice (Copies of the  invoice is in the file which is marked as Annexure-I). The O.Ps. have   sold  the  above set  to the complainant providing  one   year warranty period.

The main grievance  of the  complainant was that  he  purchased  mobile phone Ivoomi 505 model  from the  O.P. through  online  on Dt. 10.1.12018 for a sum of Rs. 4,500/-.  Warranty was of one year.   It was alledged that after about  3 months  from date of purchase the above  set   developed defects.  Despite the fact that it was  repaired  but the defects which were of manufacturing nature, were not removed  with in warranty priod.  Alleging defieicny in service, the complainant  filed complaint claiming refund the price  of the above  mobile set with compensation.

The consumer protection act is a socio economic beneficial law, intended for speedy delivery of justice to the aggrieved consumers and every complaint is supposed to be disposed off within a timeframe in consonance with the objects of the benevolent legislature. But inordinate delay in procurement of evidences and counter by the parties have emerged for reaching delirium to achievement of such objects.

                Prima facie it reveals from the record that the complainant has purchased the mobile set on dt.05.05.2015 and the same became defect with in valid warranty period . Though the OP  has repaired the set  but the very next day  the set shown the same problems as it was in previous, but the OPs service centre  though tried his best to redeem the set but could not rectify the defects and knowing manufacture problems, advised the complainant to contact the OP(Manufacturer) for necessary repair or replace the set, but despite several approaches by the complainant, the OP(Manufacturer) did not turned to the complaint and he neither repaired the set nor replaced with a new one and kept the complainant in dark.

                On the other hand it is seen from the transaction that, the O.P(Manufacturer)d espite receiving notice from this forum did not cared to file counter in the case in 90 days of its admission. Hence unless submission of counter by OPs, it is nothing to disbelieve the contentions of complainant. It is also seen from the complaint that the complainant has complained to the OP through the toll free number but all the efforts became futile.

                The complainant has submitted the defective mobile set, copy of retail invoice, warranty paper in support of her claim before this forum. We physically verified the alleged set and found the set fully defunct. The complainant further contends that, as per instructions of service centre  the complainant contacted the OP(Manufacturer) to their customer care but for no fruitful results delivered by the OP. On complaint, this forum service notice to the OPs along with complaint petitions but the OP. neither took any initiation nor tried to settle the matter with the complainant. Considering the evidences, submissions by the complainant, we feel that, the mobile set procured by the complainant is an inherent defective manufacture product hence the set could not be redeemed by the OPs. Hence the complainant being a poor  inflicted great mental agony with the defective set, and also inflicted financial losses hence under compulsions she craves the leave of this forum and prayed for justice. In our view, the action of OP   in this case is unfair, highhanded, arbitrary, and violations of terms and conditions of contract of sales as specified in the warranty papers. So the OP. found guilty of negligence and deficiency in service and the complainant is entitled for relief. The complaint is allowed against the OP. with costs.

 

In view of the above discussion relating to the above case and  In Res-IPSA-Loquiture  as well as  in the light of the settled legal position  discussed  as above referring citations the plea of the  O.Ps to avoid the claim  which is Aliane Juris.  Hence  we allow the above complaint petition  in part.

Hence  to  meet the  ends of justice, the following order is passed.

                                                                                                O R D E R

                In  resultant the complaint petition  is allowed  on contest against the O.Ps.

The  Opposite Party  is directed to  take back the  Mobile set  Ivoomi 505 model  and refund  the value  thereof  of Rs.4,500/- holding that mobile  was  having manufacturing  defects besides pay compensation of Rs.1,000/-  for mental agony undergone by the complainant and cost of Rs.500/- to the complainant within  60 months from the date of receipt of this order,

.

The entire directions shall be carried out with in 60 days from the  date of receipt   of   this order.

                Dictated and  corrected  by me.

                Pronounced in the open forum on            12 ^th.       day    of   December , 2019.

 

MEMBER                                                                                   MEMBER                                                   PRESIDENT