Orissa

Rayagada

CC/93/2018

Sri Rabindra Mohanty - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, Micromax Informaties Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Self

24 Nov 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA,

STATE:  ODISHA.

C.C. Case  No. 93/ 2018.                                          Date.   24   .11   . 2018.

P R E S E N T .

Dr. Aswini  Kumar Mohapatra,                                                   President

Sri GadadharaSahu,                                                                        Member.

Smt.PadmalayaMishra,.                                                                                Member

 

Sri Rabindra Mohanty,  S/O: Dasarathi   Mohanty,  Near UST , New colony,  Po/ Dist.Rayagada, State:  Odisha.    Cell No.09090593900  and cell No. 8093104210.                                                           …….Complainant

Vrs.

1.The Manager,  Vivek Lim, Ware house A Periyapalayam Road, Village No. 107, Bandikavanoor Village,  Citi Chennai State, Tamilnadu- 600067.

2.The Manager, Micromax information Ltd., 288A, Udyog  Vihar Phase-IV., Gurgaon-122015

                                                                                      ..…..Opp.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  Micromax LED TV which was not functioning within the extended  warranty period. The brief facts of the case  has summarised here under.

          That the  complainant  had purchased a  Micromax LED TV from the O.P. No.1  by paying cash payment of Rs.22,912/- having  one year warranty inter alia 2 year extended warranty  bearing  tax invoice No. 6A69FC/16-17/15615 on Dt.14.10.2016. The complainant booked the same through Snapdeal during the month of October, 2016. The booking company  had delivered the same during the month of  October, 2016  in the residential address of the complainant.   The above set  became  defunct  on Dt.  18.6.2018 and not functioning  within the warranty period.. The afore said set has 3(three)years warranty for the period from 14.10.2016 to 13.10.2019.  Further the O.Ps have no service centre at Rayagada. Inspite of repeated contact to the O.Ps  on Dt. 18.6.2018, Dt. 25.6.2018 the service centre situated at Berhampur they paid deaf ear   for repair or  replacement of the above set.    Hence  this case. The complainant prays the forum direct the O.Ps  to refund the purchase price of the above set  inter alia to pay  Rs.20,000/- towards mental agony and such other relief as the hon’ble forum 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  05 adjournments has been given  to them. Complainant consequently filed his memo and prayer to set exparte of the O.Ps.  Observing lapses of around 5(five) 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 is against the principles of  natural justice as envisaged  under section  13(2) (b)(ii) of the Act. Hence the O.P. 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 Micromax LED TV from the O.P. No.1by paying cash payment of Rs.22,912/- having  one year warranty inter alia 2 year extended warranty  bearing  tax invoice No. 6A69FC/16-17/15615 on Dt.14.10.2016 (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  service centre situated at Berhampur(Odisha) from time to time  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.service centre   found defect & noted with a comment.

                On examining the whole transactions, it is pertinent to mention here that, there is One year inter  two year  extended valid warranty for the alleged above set and the defect arose within   extended warranty period. As the OPs deliberately lingering to file their written version or any other documents after lapses of above 5 (five) months, and observing the present situation, and nothing adversary to the complainant as adduced by the OPs. 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.Ps  are directed to return back the defective product from the complainant  by paying the price of the  Micromax LED TV set a sum   of Rs.22,912/-  besides  to pay an amount of Rs.1,000/- towards  litigation cost to the complainant.

                The entire directions shall be carried out with in 30 days from the  date of receipt   of this order.

                Dictated and  corrected   by  me.

                Pronounced in the open forum on      24th          day of     November, 2018.

 

 

MEMBER                                                                                 MEMBER                                                 PRESIDENT