Orissa

Cuttak

CC/250/2022

Pragyan Paramita Satapathy - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Managing Director,Savex Technologies Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Self

24 Apr 2023

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

C.C.No.250/2022

 

Pragyan Paramita Satapathy,

D/O: Neelamadhab Satapathy,

At:Nuasahi,Near Hanuman Temple,

Cuttack,Odisha,

Represented through her uncle Mr. Parsuram Panda,

S/O:Iswar Panda,At:Nuasahi,Bidanasi,

Cuttack.                                                                                        ... Complainant.

                                                                Vrs.

1.     The Managing Director,

SAVEX Technology Ltd.,

GMR,Airport City Survey, No.99/1 Mamidipally Village,

                          Shamshabad,Hydearabad,Telengana

 

2.    The CEIO,

Amazon Business India,

Regd. Office;Brigade Gateway,

                               8^th floor,261,Or Rajkumar Road,

Md Swaron(West Bengaluru),

                              Karnataka-560055.

 

Present:               Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                                                Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

               Date of filing:     12.12.2022

Date of Order:    24.04.2023

 

For the complainants:        Self.

For the O.Ps  1 &  2    :                 None.

 

Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.        

The case of the complainant in short is that she had purchased a mobile phone of make Samsung havingmodel “Galaxy M 32”through online on payment of Rs.14,999/- on 16.1.2022 from the O.P no.1 through the O.P no.2 who is an e-commerce Entity.   The warranty of the said phone was of one year.  It is alleged by the complainant that during the warranty period, in the month of September,2022 her phone did not retain the charge and became dead.  She went to the Samsung Customer Care Centre at Mahatab Road,Cuttack for rectification of defect in her mobile phone,who estimated the cost of repairing of the phone at Rs.5000/-  and demanded the said amount from her.  As the said Customer Care Centre demanded money for rectification of defect,she took return of her mobile phone and again went to another Customer Care Centre of Samsung situated at Sector-6, C.D.A, Cuttack, who also demanded Rs.1500/- for rectification of defect.  It is the further case of the complainant is that having no choice, she had to deposit the said mobile phone before that Customer Care Centre for rectification of defects.  But the said Customer Care Centre could not rectify the defects and returned the same to her.  Thereafter, the complainant approached the Consumer Counselling Centre at Cuttack for redressal of her grievances.  The Consumer Counselling Centre at Cuttack after hearing her grievances, issued notice to the O.Ps but the O.Ps did not turn up.  Hence, the complainant has filed the present case with a prayer for direction to the O.Ps to refund the cost of her  mobile phone amounting to Rs.14,999/- and to pay  a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-  as compensation towards her mental agony as well as a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards cost of her litigation.

2.         Both the O.Ps did not appear, hence they were set exparte.

3.         The points for determination in this case are as follows:

i.          Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable?

ii.         Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps ?

iii.        Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by her?

Point No.ii.

          Out of the three points, point no.ii being the pertinent one is taken up first for consideration here in this case.

          The complainant had purchased a mobile phone of make Samsung having model “Galaxy M 32” through online on 16.1.2022 from the O.P no.1 through the O.P no.2 on payment of Rs.14,999/-.The warranty period of the said phone was one year.  During the warranty period i.e. in the month of September,2002, the mobile phone purchased by the complainant was found to be defective.  Hence, she went to one of the Customer Care Centre of the Samsung Company, who charged her fees for rectification of the defect of the mobile phone at the first instance and at the second instance the other Customer Care Centre of the manufacturer could not rectify the defect of the mobile phone of the complainant.   The complainant had purchased the mobile phone from the O.P no.1 through the O.P no.2 who is an e-commerce entity.  The complainant had approached the Consumer Counselling Centre, Cuttack for redressal of her grievances and the Consumer Counselling Centre also had sent notice to both the O.Ps for redressal of grievances of the complainant by way of amicable settlement. But both the O.Ps did not appear before the Consumer Counselling Centre.  Here in this case, the O.P no.1 is the seller who has some responsibility for redressal of grievances of the complainant but he did not take any steps in that regard, so also the O.P no.2 who is an e-commerce entity did not perform his duties as required under the law in redressing the grievances of the complainant.  Hence, both the O.Ps no.1 & 2 are found to be deficient in their services.

Points no.i& iii.

             From the discussions as made above, the case of the complainant is maintainable and the complainant is definitely entitled to the reliefs as claimed by her.  Hence, it is so ordered;

                                                                             ORDER

             The case is allowed exparte against the O.Ps who are found to be jointly and severally liable here in this case.  The O.Ps are thus directed to refund the cost of the mobile phone i.e. Rs.14,999/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of purchase i.e. on 16.1.2022 till the amount is quantified to the complainant.  The O.Ps are further directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant towards her mental agony and harassment as well as a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards the litigation cost.  The complainant is also directed to return the old mobile set to the O.P No.1 through the O.P no.2 within one month from the date of receipt of the awarded amount.   This order is to be carried out by the O.Ps within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 24^th day of April,2023 under the seal and signature of this Commission.          

                                                                                                         Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                                     Member

 

                                                                                                                  Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                                             President