DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, RAYAGADA,
STATE: ODISHA.
C.C. Case No. 84 / 2018. Date. 17 . 01 . 2019.
P R E S E N T .
Dr. Aswini Kumar Mohapatra, President
Sri Gadadhara Sahu, Member.
Smt.Padmalaya Mishra,. Member
Sri Pitambara Panda, Resident of Siva Nagar, Ist. lane, Balaram Nagar, Po:Gunupur, Dist: Rayagada , 765 022 (Odisha). Cell No. 9437434967. …. Complainant.
Versus.
1.The Manager, Maxtech, 27, Kenan Building, shop No.3, Ground floor, Opposite to City Bank, ATM, Sir P.M.Road, Mumbai- 400001, India.
2.The Manager, Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd., Vaishnavi Summit, No. 6/8, 7th. Main, 80 feet road, 3rd. block Koramunala, Bangalore, 560034, Karnataka.
Postal Address:- Flipkart Internet Private Ltd., Ozona Manay, Tech park, 56/18 & 55/09 7th. Floor, Gurvebhavipalya, Hostel Road, Bangalore, 560068, Karnataka(India). … Opposite parties.
For the Complainant:- Sri P.K.Dash, Advocate, Rayagada.
For the O.Ps:- Set exparte.
JUDGEMENT
The factual matrix of the case is that the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service against afore mentioned O.Ps for non refund of price towards Laptop a sum of Rs.46,980/- to the complainant towards defective during warranty period for which the complainant sought for redressal of the grievances raised by the complainant.
That the complainant had purchased HP 15 core i5 6th. GEN (8 GB/1 TB HDD/ Window 10 home/2 GB Grapics- 15-AY 009 TX Laptop silver lay 009 Tx from the O.P. No. 2 by paying cash payment of Rs.46,980/- having one year warranty bearing tax invoice No. FA A 5 NF1800003376 on Dt.28.11.2017. The complainant booked the same through the O.P. No.2 on Dt. 28.11. 2017 vide order No.OD110869530919566000. The booking company had delivered the same during the month of November, 2017 in the residential address of the complainant. The above set became defunct after two months with a following defects i.e. started screen problem and other defects in the set. So the complainant had sent E- mails to the O.Ps for repair and replacement of the same. But till date the O.Ps have not rectified the defects of the above set. On asking the O.Ps were taking one or other plea. Hence this case before the forum for redressal of his grievance and to direct the O.Ps to pay back the amount of Rs. 46,980/- towards purchase price of the set and further direct the OPs to pay compensation and also cost of litigation to the complainant & such other relief as the forum deems fit and proper for 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 7(Seven) 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 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.
The complainant has been heard at length & perused the records.
. From the records it reveals that, the complainant has purchased a HP 15 core i5 6th. GEN (8 GB/1 TB HDD/ Window 10 home/2 GB Grapics- 15-AY 009 TX Laptop silver lay 009 Tx from the O.P. No.1 by paying cash payment of Rs. 46,980/- having one year warranty bearing tax invoice No. . FA A 5 NF1800003376 on Dt.28.11.2017 (copies of the tax invoice is in the file which is marked as Annexure-I). But unfortunately within the warranty period the above set found defective and not functioning properly. The complainant complained the OPs in shape of E-Mails for remove the defects(copies of the E- Mails are in the file which is marked as Annexure-2).
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 above set and to remove the defects of the above set and to give 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 above set from the O.Ps on payment of consideration an amount of Rs. 46,980/- on Dt. 28.11.2017 (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 had intimated to the O.Ps through E-Mail (copies of the E-Mails are in the file) but could not be rectified by the O.Ps till date.
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 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 are liable.
On appreciation of the evidences adduce before it, the forum is inclined to allow the complaint against the OPs.
Hence to meet the ends of justice, the following order is passed.
O R D E R
In resultant the complaint petition stands allowed on exparte against the O.Ps
The O.Ps are ordered to take back their defective product and refund purchase price of the Laptop a sum of Rs. 46,980/- to the complainant. The O.Ps are further ordered to pay Rs.1,000/- towards compensation for mental agony, besides Rs.500/- towards cost.
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 as per rule free of cost.
Dictated and corrected by me.
Pronounced in the open forum on 17th. day of January, 2019.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
