Orissa

Rayagada

CC/9/2018

Sri Rajesh Huika - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, Mobi World - Opp.Party(s)

Self

20 Aug 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA,

STATE:  ODISHA.

C.C. Case  No.09 / 2018.                                               Date.   20     .     8  . 2018

P R E S E N T .

Dr. Aswini  Kumar Mohapatra,                       President.

Sri  GadadharaSahu,                                             Member.

Smt. Padmalaya  Mishra,                                     Member.

 

Sri Rajesh  Muika, Jr. Typist, Office of the Civil Court,AT/Po:Gunupur,       Dist:Rayagada  (Odisha), Cell No.8270479243.             …. Complainant.

Versus.

1.The Manager, Mobi World,  Near  Kapilash Road, Rayagada(Odisha)

2. The Manager, Apps Daily Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Previous onward mobility solution Pvt. Ltd., C wing, 6^th. Floor, Oberoi Garden Estates,  Chandivali  Farm road, Andheri East, Mumbai, 400  072.

                                                                                                            .…..Opp.Parties

Counsel for the parties:                         

For the complainant: - Self.

For the O.Ps:- Set exparte.

JUDGMENT

The  curx of the case is that  the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps    for  non arrangements to replace the Samsung mobile set  interalia non payment of  insured amount for which  the complainant  sought for redressal of the grievances raised by the complainant. The brief facts of the case  has summarised here under.

 

On being noticed  the O.Ps neither entering in to appear before the forum nor filed their  written version inspite of more than  4 adjournments has been given  to them. Complainant consequently filed his memo and prayer to set exparte of the O.Ps.  Observing lapses of around 8 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.P . 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.

From the records it reveals that, there is no dispute that the  complainant had purchased an SAmsusng Galaxy A 300  mobile set  bearing  IMEI No.351819071134637  and Product No. RZ 1G92F25VD from the O.P.  No.1   by paying a sum of Rs.13,500/-  with Retail invoice No. 2790 dt. 25.01.2016 with  one year warranty (Copies of the  bill is in the file marked as Annexure-I). The same was insured before the O.P.No.1 after payment of insurance amount and received a receipt from the O.P. No.1 and the scratch card  activated the number after scratching the card No.bebc7nneXW on Dt.  25.1.2016.  Since then the above said mobile was insured under  the O.P. No.2 and promised to a 10 days replacement or repair guarantee(copies of same is in the file marked as Annexure-2).   The complainant  had purchased the above particulars protection pack for his i-phone mobile set and as per the O.P. No.2 user guide and instructions the complainant  enter into agreement to protect his mobile set and the O.P.No.2  to give  service   to the complainant since than. On September, 2016 the  phone was fell down from the pocket of the  complainant while riding the bike accidentally damaged and not working properly. The same matter had     immediately  intimated to the O.Ps .They had promised to rectify the defect soon but  till  date they had not   rectified the same. The complainant further approached the O.Ps   to make necessary arrangements to replace the above said mobile set which he spent but for no use.  In turn the OPs   paid deaf ear. Hence this C.C. case. 

                From the records it is seen that, the complainant has filed Xerox copy of purchase bill which is marked as Annexure-I.  Hence it is abundantly clear that, the complainant had purchased the above set from the O.P.  No.1.  The complainant also approached the O.Ps  but no fruitful  result received till date(copies   of   the  letters  regarding correspondence   with the O.Ps which  are  marked as  Annexure-3 & 4) .

                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 with in some month of use. As the OPs deliberately lingering to file their written version or any other documents after lapses of above 1(One) year, 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 or a new same set instead of the defective one 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  stands allowed  in part  on exparte against the O.PS.

                The O.P  No.  2  is   directed to return back the defective product from the complainant  by paying the price of the  above mobile set  a sum of Rs. 13,500/-  inter  alia  to pay  cost and compensation Rs.1,000/-.

                The O.P. No. 1 is  directed to  refer the matter to the O.P. No.2  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.

Service the copies of the order to the parties free of cost.

Dictated and corrected by me

Pronounced on this     20^th.   day of      August             , 2018.

 

 

MEMBER                                                                              MEMBER                                                    PRESIDENT