Orissa

Rayagada

CC/92/2021

Sri T. Raghuram - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, Savex Technologies Pvt Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Self

17 Dec 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER DISPUTES  REDRESSAL COMMISSION, RAYAGADA,

AT:  KASTURI NAGAR, Ist.  LANE,   L.I.C. OFFICE     BACK,PO/DIST: RAYAGADA, STATE:  ODISHA, PIN NO.765001,.E-mail- dcdrfrgda@gmail.com

…

 

C.C.CASE  NO.__92_______/2021                                      Date.    17    .12.  2021.

 

P R E S E N T .

Sri   Gopal   Krishna   Rath,                                               President.

Smt.Padmalaya  Mishra,.                                                 Member

 

 

 

Sri T. Raghuram, Kasturi  Nagar, 5h.lane,   Po/Dist:Rayagada   (Odisha). 765 001,  Cell No.94375-00113.                                                                                                                                                 …. Complainant.

Versus.

1.TheManager,Savex Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Ludhiana, Punjab-141113.

2. The  Manager, Samsung  India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Regd. Office, A-25, Ground Floor, New Delhi- 110044.                                    .…..Opp.Parties

.

Counsel for the parties:                         

For the complainant: - Self.

For the O.P. No.1:- Set exparte.

For the O.P  No.2 :- Sri  K..Ch.Mohapatra, Advocate, Bhubaneswar.

 

JUDGEMENT

The  crux of the case is that  the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps    for  non rectification of Samsung mobile   which was found defective within warranty period and not removed the defects by the O.Ps service centre for which  the complainant  sought for redressal of the grievances raised by the complainant. 

Upon  Notice, the  O.P No.1   neither entering in to appear before the District commission  nor filed their  written version inspite of more than  03 adjournments has been given  to them. Complainant consequently filed his memo and prayer to set exparte of the O.P No.1 .  Observing lapses of around  3 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  from the complainant set the case  exparte against the O.P No.1. The action of the O.P No.1   is against the principles of  natural justice as envisaged  in the C.P. Act. Hence the O.P. No.1     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,.

Upon  Notice, the O.P No.2  put in their appearance and filed written version in which  they refuting allegation made against them.  The O.P No.2  taking one and another pleas in the written version   sought to dismiss the complaint as it is not maintainable  under the C.P. Act, . The facts which are not specifically admitted may be treated  as denial of the O.P  No.2. Hence the O.P No.2  prays the commission to dismiss the case against  them  to meet the ends of justice.

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

This forum  examined the entire material on record  and given  a thoughtful consideration  to the  arguments  advanced  before us by  the  parties touching the points both on the facts  as well as on  law.

                                                        FINDINGS.

There  is no dispute that   the  complainant has purchased  Mobile phone Galaxy m31 SPACE  BLACK  Samsung   bearing IMEI  No. 355458114306872   from the O.P. No.1 through on line purchase  bearing  tax  invoice P.O. reference No.in-sata-74495 on Dt.19.07.2020  on  payment  of  consideration  a sum of Rs.17,499/-. The O.Ps. have   sold  the  said set to the complainant providing  one year warranty period. (copiesof the  Tax invoice No. P.O. inter  alia   one year warranty  card  is in the file which is marked as Annexure-I ).

After  using   some  months the complainant  has  shown  defective in the above set  i.e.   not clearly  hearing  during  talking with the parties.  Hence     the complainant  approached the  service centre    for its rectification . The   Service center has not rectified the  same within the warranty period.

            The main grievances of the complainant is that due to non  rectification of the  above  set perfectly  within warranty period  he wants  refund  of purchase  price of the above set. Hence this C.C. case.

The O.Ps  in  their written version contended that  the complainant had not  approached the O.P.  for the defect or the defect could not removed from his alleged  set  and also if the service centre   has no knowledge regarding any allegation of defect  of the alleged  set prior  to filing  of this case, then how the cause of action will arise against the O.Ps on absent of knowledge  about any defect of the alleged set.  Further if the complainant fails to produce  any evidence regarding  he has approached to the O.P. (Manufacturer) about non rectification  of the defect from the alleged  set prior to filling this case before forum, then how this complaint  will stand  against  the O.P.  ?  The complainant has not come with clean hands before this forum.   The complainant has not mentioned any date on which day defect persisted in his set and no where he had stated  that on which day & on which way  informed either the O.P.    or the service centre, Rayagada about  non rectification of the defect  from his alleged set.  Also the complainant has no where alleged   that the  Service centre, Rayagada has committed the deficiency in service because the O.Ps are not  the service provider.

The O.Ps are   taking one and another pleas in the written version and had mentioned  a lot of citations of the Apex  courts and   sought to dismiss the complaint as it is not maintainable  under the C.P. Act.

Now we have to see whether there was any  negligence  on the part of the O.Ps in treating the complainant as alleged ?

We  perused the  documents filed by the complainant  and it  proves that the complainant has purchased a mobile set  from the  O.P.   and after its purchase when the mobile set was found defective the  O.P failed to rectify the defect. The  complainant has approached the service centre  from time to time but  the defects were not removed by the service centre.   At the time of selling their products the O.Ps should ensure that they would provide after sale service to the customer but in this case  the O.Ps sold their produce and failed to give after sale service which is a clear deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. At

this stage we hold that  if the mobile set  require service immediately after its purchase then it can be presumed that it is manufacturing  defective   and  if a defective mobile is supplied, the consumer  is entitled to get refund of the price of the product/article  or to replace a new one.  In the instant case as it appears that the mobile set which was purchased by the complainant had developed defects after  using some months   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 a mobile set  with an exception to have the effective benefit of use of the product but in this case the complainant was deprived of getting beneficial use of the article and deprived of  in using the mobile set for such a long time and the defects were not removed  by the O.Ps .     .

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

                                                O R D E R

                In  resultant the complaint petition  is allowed  on contest against the O.Ps.

The O.P.  No.2 (Manufacturer) is    directed to return back the defective product from the complainant  by paying the price of the  above Samsung    mobile set  a sum of Rs. 17,999/- . Parties are left to bear their own cost.

            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 45 days from the  date of receipt   of this order.Service the copies of the order to the parties free of cost.

 

Serve  the copies of the order to the parties as per rule free of cost.

Dictated and  corrected by me.

                Pronounced in the open   Commission   on            17^th.        day of       December,, 2021.

 

 

                                                                                MEMBER                                                   PRESIDENT