Orissa

Rayagada

CC/51/2017

Dabasis patnaik - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, Lyf Mobile Reliance - Opp.Party(s)

Self

31 Jan 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA,

STATE:  ODISHA.

C.C. Case  No. 51/ 2017.                                 Date.      31  . 1  . 2018.

P R E S E N T .

Dr. Aswini  Kumar Mohapatra,                   President

Sri GadadharaSahu, .                               Member.

Smt.  Padmalaya  Mishra,                          Member

Debasisa Patnaik, S/O: Late Remesh Chandra Pattnaik, AT: Kasturi Nagar, 5^th. Lane,    Po/ Dist.Rayagada,State:  Odisha.                        Cell No. 87636-19774                         …….Complainant

Vrs.

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

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

3.The Manager, Reliance Retail  Ltd., Rayagada, J.C.-01, Khaliguda, Near Angan,  Po/Dist: Rayagada                                                                                          .…..Opp.Parties

Counsel for the parties:                         

For the complainant: - Self.

For the O.Ps  :- Sri V.S.Raju and associates, Rayagada.

                                J u d g e m e n t.

        The  present disputes emerges out of the complaint petition filed by the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps  for non refund of mobile price a sum of Rs.14,599/- . The brief facts are summarised here under.

 

       1)     That  the complainant had purchased   a LYF mobile  No. 8763619774 vide its IMEI No.868877023451919  and Expert ID No. 60223286 and model No.  smart phone CKLS-5002 black WA on Dt. 28.5.2016 for an amount of Rs. 14,599/-.from the O.P. No.2.  After some days   the said set  was  hanged. Name, mobile No. are not visible and it was not displayed properly, battery is not back up.  It was not all working and damaged one.  Inspite of repeated  attempt by the O.P No.3  the  defects of the above set  has not rectified   and the complainant kept the same  without used at house.  Hence this case. The complainant prays the forum direct the O.Ps refund the purchase price of the above set inter alia such other relief as the hon’ble forum deems fit and proper for the best interest of justice.

 

       2) On being noticed the O.Ps filed joint written version through their learned counsel  and submitted that the complaint is not  maintainable. This forum has lack of jurisdiction. The O.Ps taking other grounds in the written version   sought to dismiss the complaint as it is not maintainable  under the C.P. Act, 1986.   Hence the O.Ps prays the forum to dismiss the case against  them  to meet the ends of justice.

The O.Ps appeared and filed their written version.  Heard arguments from the  learned counsel for O.P. and  the  complainant.    Perused the record, documents, written version  filed by the parties. 

The  parties     advanced arguments vehemently touching the points both on the facts  as well as on  law                                         

                                                         FINDINGS.

       3.The O.Ps  vehemently argued that the present complaint is not maintainable  before the forum. We are of the opinion that the case  is relating to defective goods  which is covered under section 2(i)(f) of the C.P. Act. The C.P. Act  which provides that  “Defective means any fault, in imperfection or shortcoming in the quality, quantity, potency, purity are standard which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force”.                                                                  After amendment made by  the C.P. Act   of 2002 wherein it  is made clear that when a complainant  is using the product of the O.P.No.1   purchased from the  O.P.No.3 he is also coming within the definition of consumer and the service provided  or attached to the said  goods in the shape of warranty or guarantee is also available to the users.

The O.Ps  again  argued that   this  forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the above complaint.  Section 11(2) (a) of the C.P. Act specifically lays down that the Dist. Consumer fora   can entertain complaints within the local limits of whose jurisdiction  the O.P. actually or voluntarily  resides or carries on business or has a branch office or for personally works for gain.  In the present case  the service centre  of the O.P. No.1 and  retail centre  are   functioning at Rayagada town,  State:  Odisha  i.e  O.P. 2 & 3.

The  O.Ps further  argued  in para No. 8 that this hon’ble forum lacks the territorial  jurisdiction   as admittedly the office of the  O.P is located at Mumbai, yet  it can not over ride statutary  provision under section-3 of the C.P. Act,1986.

On perusal of the record  it is revealed that  the fact of the  purchase  of Mobile set    is not denied by the  O.Ps.  It is admitted position the complainant having  purchased   above goods for  consideration  having the warrantee for replacement/refund   is  entitled  to him

It is admitted position of law that when   a  goods sold  by the  manufacturer has under gone  servicing   and even such  servicing  the same defects  persist  it   is deemed  to be a  manufacturing defect.   Hence the complainant is entitled to thoroughly  check up  of the mobile set   and   to  remove   the defects  of   the above set  with fresh warrantee .

It is held and reported  in  CPJ 2005 (2) page No.781 the Hon’ble State  Commission , Chandigarh observed  the dealer is the person who in the market comes in direct contact with the consumer and he assures about the quality   of goods sold and in case  the consumer  had problem with the mobile handset, the dealer was under an obligation to refer the matter  to the manufacturer for necessary  relief, which  in the  instant case was   done.

Coming to the merits of the case the complainant had purchased the Mobile set  from the O.P No. 2   on payment of consideration  an amount of Rs. 14,599/- on Dt. 28.05.2016 (copies of the  retail  invoice) marked as Annexure-I.  On perusal of the record we observed  the complainant  after using  some months for rectification of defects on Dt. 14.3.2017  handed over the same to the O.P. No.3 (service centre) but when the complainant used it, the same defects are in existence in the said set,  so  the complainant  purchased another mobile set from the market.

On perusal of the record we observed that  the complainant made several complaints with the O.Ps pointing out the defects  which goes on to show that  right from  the very beginning  the above set was not performing  well and continued  repeatedly to develop defects  resulting  in  non-performance which was intimated by the complainant.   Further we observed that  on repeated complaints made  by the complainant to the O.Ps neither the defects have been removed nor replaced  with a new  set. We observed  inspite of  required  services made  with in the  warranty  period  the above set could not be rectified.  We  hold   at this stage if the above set required frequent servicing then it can be presumed that it has a manufacturing defect. If a defective set  is supplied a consumer he  is entitled to get refund of the price of the  set or to replaced  with a new set and also the consumer concerned is entitled  and has a right to claim compensation and cost to meet the mental agony. In the instant case as it appears that the  above  set which was purchased by the complainant which had developed  defects and the O.Ps were unable to restore its normal functioning during the warranty period.

             It appears that the complainant invested a substantial amount and purchased the above  set with an expectation to have the effective benefit of use of the mobile set. In this case the complainant was deprived of getting beneficial use   of the set and deprived of using the above set for such a long time and the defects were not removed by the O.Ps who could know the defects from time to time from the complainant. In the instant case the O.Ps   liable.            In the above facts, circumstances  & on perusal of the record, the complaint petition,   documents, written argument  and referring on above Citations there    is  “prima-facie” case in favor of the complainant.

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

 In  resultent the complaint petition is  hereby allowed in part  on contest against  the O.Ps.

4) The O.Ps  ordered  to  refund  purchase  price of the LYF mobile set  a sum of  Rs.14,599/- to the complainant  inter alia  to pay Rs.1,000/-  towards compensation  for  mental agony and litigation expenses.

The O.Ps   are  ordered to comply the above directions within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.  Serve the copies of the  order to the parties free of cost.

Dictated and corrected by me

Pronounced  on this        31st.   Day of  January,   2018.

 

Member.                              Member.                                                      President