Orissa

Rayagada

CC/229/2016

B. Pawan Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, Ws Retail Service - Opp.Party(s)

Self

30 Dec 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA

 

                                                 C.C. Case  No.229/ 2016.

P R E S E N T .

Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash, LL.B,                             President.

Sri Gadadhara Sahu, B.Sc.                                     Member

B.Pawan Kumar, S/o B.Kumar Swamy, Near Girls High School, Ranaiguda aFarm,Rayagada,765001,Po/Ps/ Dist. Rayagada.                                                                                                                                                                                                                               ………Complainant

                                                            Vrs.

1. Manager, W.S Retail Services Pvt. Ltd., Khasra No.435,Road No.04,Lal Dora Ext.,Mahipalpur, New Delhi-110037,India.
2. Service Manager, Bright Infocom,Ashok,10-5,11,Ram Nagar, Visakhapatnam.
3. General Manager,Lenovo,1^st Floor, Gurbanga Complex,Dr-47,15-4,Dwarakanagar Road, Visakhapatnam.

                                                                                                                        ………...Opp.Parties

Counsel for the parties:

For the complainant: In Person

For the O.Ps:  Sri R.K.Jena & Associates Advocate, Rayagada.

 

                                                                 JUDGMENT

                        The facts of the complaint  in brief is that,  the complainant has  purchased   a    Lenovo brand Mobile   from O.p. No.3 through OP 1  on  dt.21.01.2016 for a   consideration of Rs.8,740/-    but after two months of its purchase  the  mobile  become defunct  for which  the complainant  approached the OP 2  and  but the OP 2 failed to  rectify the defects stating that it is a manufacturing defect.  Hence, the complainant   finding no other option approached this forum for relief  and prayed  to direct the O.Ps  to   refund the  cost of the mobile   with cost and  compensation. Hence, this complaint.

                       

                        On being noticed,  the O.p 1 appeared  and filed written version inter alia denying the petition allegations on all its material particulars. The OP 2 & 3 neither appeared nor filed any written version  as such the OP 2 & 3  were set exparte.

                        It is submitted by the OP 1 that the complainant has purchased a Lenovo K3  Note on 21.01.2016  from Op 1  and the role of the OP 1 is limited to reselling the products  of various manufacturers and its role comes to the end as  soon as the product  ordered is delivered at the address  provided by the customer. In the present case, the OP 1 delivered the product in a sealed box to the complainant  within the time  and there is no deficiency of service on the part of the OP1 . The OP 1  has no knowledge  or facility to ascertain if the alleged defects are due to inherent manufacturing defects or arose due to customer abuse . It is the sole duty of the manufacturer  or their authaorised service station to remove the defects to the satisfaction of the customer. The complainant  himself has admitted that the product was having manufacturing defects, hence it is the manufacturer  who can be held liable for providing after sale services to the complainant. The complainant used the product  for more than six months without any problem before filing the present complaint.  The thirty days replacement warranty provided by the seller also stands lapsed on 20/02/2016.  The reseller  i.e. OP 1  cannot be held liable for the defect  in goods. The OP1  has no role to play in providing after sale service  as the same is the sole responsibility of the manufacture and its authorised service centre  and hence  the OP 1  is not liable for refund of the  cost of the product or paying any compensation to the complainant  and hence the complaint is not maintainable against the  OP 1.

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

                        In reply, the OP 1 submitted that the complainant had satisfactorily used  the product for more than six months and the OP 1 provides thirty days replacement warranty  and  the complainant did not face any  problem  in the mobile phone within these thirty days and  it is the liability of the manufacturer  to provide the after sale service of the product  and the liability of the OP 1  end as  soon as the product  ordered is delivered at the address  provided by the customer.           

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

                        We perused the documents filed by the complainant. The OP 1 strongly denied by saying that it is the liability of the manufacturer  to provide the after sale service of the product  and the liability of the OP 1 ends when the product is delivered to the  consumers. Here, we noticed  that the OP 1 is  selling  different products online  of different companies all over and every corner of India and the consumers like the complainant being  attracted by  their  advertisement and demonstration are giving order and if they will not get after sale service they will deprived of  using the products. When the OP 1 is selling products, it is their duty and responsibility  to provide after sell service to the customers and they have to watch  before selling their products  that to whom  and where they are selling/ giving delivery  the products, there  is having after sale service or not. The OP 1 is to keep in mind that ,it is their bounden duty to provide after sale service not till the ends of its warranty but till the end  of the life of the products because after warranty period the consumer can avail paid service and if the OP 1 is not able to provide such service they have no right to sell the product  to the consumers like the complainant as they are indirectly selling the products through the manufacturing company and it is the only OP 1 not any other Ops who is to ensure the consumers to provide after sale service as and when require and  onus lies with the seller to give proper  after sale service to the customers and  they can not say that  their liability ends when the product is delivered to the consumers.

 

      Since the mobile 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 mobile set  require  servicing since  the date of its purchase, then it can be presumed that it is defective one and if the defective mobile 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 mobile 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 mobile 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 defecates 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

                        The  opposite parties  are directed to  refund the cost of the mobile set  i.e. Rs.8,740/-   and pay  compensation of Rs.1,000/-  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, failing which the O.Ps are liable to pay  interest  @  12%  p.a. on the above awarded amount till  the date of payment. Accordingly the complaint is allowed.

                        Pronounced in open forum today on this 23^rd  day of December,2016 under the seal and signature of this forum.

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

 

 

            Member                                                                                               President

Documents relied upon:

By the complainant:

1. Xerox copy of  Retail Invoice.
2. Xerox copy of job sheet

 

By the Opp.Party: Nil                                                                          President