Karnataka

Gadag

CC/10/2017

Shinu Srinivas S/o Narayansa Arvatagi - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Managing Director Infinity Enterprises BLR-PC - Opp.Party(s)

R.B.C

18 Nov 2017

ORDER

 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, GADAG.

                        COMPLAINT NO.10/2017       

                                                                                     

                                      P r e  s e n t:                      

Smt.C.H.Samiunnisa Abrar, B.A., LLB   :  President

Sri.B.S.Keri, B.A., LLB (Spl)                  :   Member

Complainant      :-

Shinu@Srinivas Narayansa Arvatagi, Age: 26 Yrs, Occ: Business, R/o Near Mailaraling temple, Betgeri, Dt: Gadag.   (Rep. by Sri.R.B.Challamarad, Adv.)

                                 V/s

Opposite Parties  :-

1.       2.

The Managing Director, Infinity Enterprise BLR-PC C/o Proconnect Supply Chain Solutions Ltd, Bangalore.        (Absent)   Gajanan Associates (Authorised Mobile Service Centre of Infinity Enterprises, Bangalore) Harsha Complex, Station Road, Hubli, Tq:Hubli, Dist:Dharwad. (Absent)

JUDGEMENT DELIVERED BY

SMT.C.H.SAMIUNNISA ABRAR, PRESIDENT:

The complainant has filed this Complaint against the Opposite Parties (herein after referred in short as OPs) u/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

 

2.    The brief fact of the case is that the complainant purchased LeEco Le Max 2 (Rose Gold 32GB) mobile handsets from respondent through Online on 02.11.2016 for RS.17999/- the OP have issued the receipt the detail of the product is as follows:

Product Name              : LeEco Le Max2 (Rose Gold 32GB)

Item Code                     : BD2819336.

Order No                       : 16487111456.

Suborder No                 : 20565333941.

IMEI No                         : 869635022366754.

Warranty Period           : One year from the date of Purchase.

 

After 15 days of purchase the complainant came to know that the said handset is having finger print problem and screen problem, hence the complainant approached to the service center i.e. OP No.2 on 13.12.2016 but the service center not returned the handset till today due to this complainant put to a lot of mental agony and hardship, complainant issued the legal notice to Op No.1 his council on 30.03.2017 responded has refused to receive the notice and same was returned on 07.04.2017 with the endorsement as company refused, hence complainant prayed to order against the respondents to refund the amount of the handset along with other compensation.

3.       The forum registered the case and issued a notice to the OPs. OP’s remained absent and placed ex-parte.

4.      The complainant has filed his chief affidavit along with the documents i.e. Invoice dated: 02.11.2016 Job Card dated: 13.12.2016, Office Copy of the Notice, Postal

 

Cover with Endorsement as Company refused and Postal Receipt. On the other hand, OP’s remained absent.

5.      On the basis of above said pleading, oral and documentary evidence, the following points arises for adjudications are as follows:   

1.   2.	Whether the Complainant proves that OPs are made deficiency in service?   Whether the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs as sought?
3.	What Order?

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            

Our Answer to the above points are:-

Point No.1 – Affirmative,

Point No.2 – Partly Affirmative,

Point No.3 – As per the final order.

 

R E A S O N S

     6.  POINT NO.1 and 2:  Since both the points are inter-link and identical, we proceed with both the points together.

     7.      Complainant filed this complaint against the Op’s to refund the amount paid by him to purchase  handset through On-line with Op No.1, Op No.1 sent the defective mobile to the complainant this is the pleading of the complainant on the other hand forum registered the case notices were ordered OP’s remained absent and not filed any documents or not defended their case against the complainant after the receipt of the notice OP’s remained absent even they have not claimed the article sent by the forum On-going through the records on file complainant produced invoice as well as Job Card of authorized service

center there it is clear that complainant had purchased the mobile with Op No.1, Complainant submitted the said mobile to Op No.2 for repair. But Op No.2 neither corrected the mobile nor returned, he kept mum keeping mobile with him such being the case it is clear that Op’s are practicing unfair trade. Complainant produced a citation cited in 2011 SAR (Civil)51, C.N.Ananthram V/s Flat India Ltd and Others etc etc. cited as follows Consumer Protection Act, 1986-Secs. 3 and 14-Manufacturing defect in the vehicle-Removal of defects and delivery of vehicle to Complainant after having the same properly checked by technical expert-proper-petitioner purchased diesel vehicle-According to the petitioner, certain defects, particularly in the engine, began to manifest themselves-The engine was completely replaced with a new vehicle or the sale price be refunded-Complaint –Distt. Forum directed to refund the amount-Revision-State Commission directed respondents to replace the vehicle with a brand new or on failure to do so to refund the amount-National Commission held that respondents, after removing the defects, if any, deliver the vehicle to appeal-lants in presence of an independent technical expert-Hence, this petition-Whether the order passed by the National Commission was unreasonable-Held: No. Petition disposed of with the direction that if the expert is of the opinion that there are inherent manufacturing defects, the petitioner will be entitled to refund of amount as directed by State Commission. As per this citation and discussion made in the body of the citation it is clear that Complainant here also suffered a lot even Op had not called the Complainant to hand over the mobile after rectification even Op’s have

 

not claimed the articles sent by the forum as well as Complainant.

Hence forum come to the conclusion that Op’s made deficiency in service and practicing Un-fair trade, hence we answer point no.1 in affirmative, point No.2 in partly affirmative.

8.   POINT NO.3:  For the reasons and discussion made above and finding on the above points, we proceed to pass following:  

//ORDER//

1. This Complaint is partly allowed with costs.
2. The OP’s are gently and severally liable to refund the amount of Rs.17,999/- with interest @ 6% from the date of filling this Complaint to the Complainant.
3. Further, OPs are directed to pay this amount within a period of thirty days, failing which Ops are liable to pay interest @ 12% from the date of filling this Complaint till realization.
4. OP’s are liable to pay Rs.2,000/- towards mental agony and harassment and Rs.500/- towards litigation charges
5. Send the copies of this Order to the parties free of cost.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by me in the Open Court 18^th day of November, 2017)

 

 

 

(Shri B.S.Keri)                                              (Smt.C.H.Samiunnisa Abrar)

       Member                                                                 President