Orissa

Rayagada

CC/105/2018

Sri Santunu Kumar Khatai - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, LYF Mobile Reliance Retail Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Self

12 Jan 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

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

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

C.C. Case  No. 105 / 2018.                                       Date.   31 .  12   . 2020.

P R E S E N T .

Sri Gadadhara  Sahu,                                         President –in-charge

Smt.   Padmalaya  Mishra,.                               Member

 

Sri  Santanu Kumar Khatai,  Kasturi Nagar, 5^th. Lane,  Po/Dist:Rayagada   (Odisha).Cell No.7008616823.                                         …. Complainant.

Versus.

1.The Manager, LYF Mobile, Reliance Retail Ltd., Reliance DX Mini Tilak Marg, Dhobi Talao, Mumbai- 400002.

2.The Propritor, Reliance Digital Express, BalaramBhawan, Old Station Road, Gajapati Junction, Po/Dist: Rayagada.

3.The Manager, Reliance Retail  Ltd., Rayagada, J.C.-01, Khaliguda, Near Angan,  Po/Dist: ayagada                                                                                       … 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 are summarized here under.

That  the complainant had purchased  a LYF wind 6 white  from the O.P. No.2 on Dt.10.08.2016 bearing IMEI No.911504251334990 on  payment  of amount a sum of Rs.4,999/-.  Another IMEI No. are 911504251334990/911504251334996.  The O.Ps. have   sold  the  said set to the complainant providing  two  years  warranty period .The above set   found defective  within the warranty  period. 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. Though the  O.Ps service centre  has given the service, but the same trouble continued. 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 Service centre  has issued the  job sheets in favour of the complainant in different date are  Dt.29.1.2018,  25.01.2017, 25.4.2018, 9.5.2018, 25.7.2018, 14.5.2018, 25.7.2018  are enclosed along with petition for perusal of the forum. So the complainant  has not filed the job sheet of the Service centre. That the O.Ps failed to replace the  above set nor repair it with perfect condition 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. Hence the  complainant filed  this C.C. case and prays the  commission  direct the O.Ps to  refund  the purchase of the  above mobile set and such other relief as the commission deems fit and proper  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  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 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  in  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 thelearned  counsel for 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  a LYF wind 6 white  from the O.P. No.2 on Dt.10.08.2016 bearing IMEI No.911504251334990 on  payment  of amount a sum of Rs.4,999/-.  Another IMEI No. are 911504251334990/911504251334996 (copies of the bill are in the file which is marked as Annexure-I).. But unfortunately after delivery 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 witn 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  above mobile set   a sum of Rs.4,999/- besides  Rs.1,000/-  damages towards mental agony  inter alia Rs.1,000/-  for 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 30 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    31^st.     day of    December, 2020.

 

                                                   MEMBER                                                    PRESIDENT