Orissa

Rayagada

CC/185/2017

Sri Rajendra Kumar Senapati - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, MINTAKART India Pvt., lTD - Opp.Party(s)

Self

10 Jan 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA,

STATE:  ODISHA.

C.C. Case  No.        185        / 2017.                             Date.   10     . 1 . 2019.

P R E S E N T .

Dr. Aswini  Kumar Mohapatra,                   President

Sri Gadadhara Sahu,                                                    Member.

Smt.PadmalayaMishra,.                                              Member

 

Sri Rajendra Kumar Senapati, S/O: Sri Dharma Senapati, Advocate by profession, New Colony,  Po/ Dist.Rayagada, State:  Odisha.                                                    Cell No.96922-22200                                                                                                                                                                …. Complainant.

Versus.

1.The Manager, Mintkart India Private Ltd., (formerly eBay India Private Ltd) No. 1261, 6^th. Floor,  Building No. 12, Solitaire Corporate Park, No. 167, Guru Hargovind Ji Marg, Andheri East, Mumbai-400093, Maharastra,India.                                                                            … 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 Xiaomi MI 20000 Mah power bank  set  which was found defective within the warranty period. The brief facts of the case  has summarised here under.

The facts of the complaint  in brief is that,  the complainant had purchased  one    Xiaomi MI 20000 Mah power bank  set  with a  consideration of Rs.1,299/- on 31.01.2015 from O.P.  vide Tax  invoice No.13838 Dt. 9.11.2017 with one year warranty through online purchase.   But   after   its purchase the   set  was  found defective  and     for which  the complainant informed to the O.P.     but the OPs  failed to rectify the defects and hence finding no other option  the complainant  approach this forum and prayed to direct the O.Ps  to  refund the cost and   direct the OPs to pay compensation and  other expenses. Hence, this  C.C. complaint.

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(One) 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  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.

From the records it reveals that, there is no dispute that the  complainant had purchased a Xiaomi MI 20000 Mah power bank  set  from the O.P.  No.1  by paying a sum of Rs.1,299/-  vide Tax  invoice No.13838 Dt. 9.11.2017 with one year warranty through online purchase ( Copies of the invoice is in the file which is marked as Annexure-I). But unfortunately after  opened the courier packet had found that the above  set was a damaged one.  Immediately  the complainant complained to  the O.P for necessary repair.  In turn  on Dt. 12.12.2017 the O.Ps bluntly replied that the claim was rejected  and paid deaf ear.   The complainant further approached the O.Ps for return the money which he spent but for no use.  Hence this case.

                The Complainant  argued that the O.Ps  have sold a defective   set  to the complainant and claimed that the O.Ps caused deficiency in service and deprived of the complainant of enjoyment of the  set since the date of  its purchase  which caused mental agony and harassment to the complainant.

Now we have to see whether there was any negligence of the OPs  in providing  after sale service  to the complainant as alleged ?

 

We perused the documents filed by the complainant.  Since the above set found defective after its purchase    and   the complainant  informed the OPs regarding the defect but the  OPs  failed to remove  the defect . At this stage we hold that  if the above set  require  servicing since  the date of its purchase, then it can be presumed that it is defective one and if the defective  set  is sold to the complainant , the complainant is entitled to get refund of the price of the article or to replace a new  one or  remove the defects  and also the   complainant is entitled  and has a right to claim compensation and cost to meet his mental agony , financial loss.  In the instant case  as it is appears that the above set  which was purchased by the complainant 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 article. In this case, the complainant was deprived of getting beneficial use of the article and deprived of using the mobile set  for such  and the defects were not removed by the O.Ps who  know the defects from time to time from the complainant.

               Hence, in our view the complainant has right to claim compensation to meet  his mental agony, financial loss. Hence,  it is ordered.

                                                        ORDER

 

                  In resultant the complaint  stands  allowed  on exparte in part against the  O.P.

                       

    The  Opposite parties  are directed to take back defective product  and  refund the cost of the Xiaomi MI 20000 Mah power bank  set  i.e. Rs. 1,299/-   and pay  compensation of Rs.500/-  for mental agony undergone by the complainant and cost of Rs.500/- .          

     

      Further, we direct the OPs to pay the aforesaid award amount  within one month from the date of receipt of this order.

                  A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties    free of charge.

 

       Dictated and corrected by me.

 

       Pronounced in open forum today on this         10th day of  January, 2019 under the seal and signature of this forum.

                    

Member.                                                          Member.                                  President.