Orissa

Rayagada

CC/127/2021

Spandana Choudhury - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Marketing Manager, Micromax Pvt Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Self

20 Aug 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

At: Kasturinagar,  Ist. Lane,  LIC office  back, POST  /  DIST: Rayagada, 

STATE:  ODISHA,  Pin No. 765001. E-mail  -    dcdrfrgda@gmail.com

                                                      ******************

C.C.case  No.     127      / 2021.                           Date.      20. 8 . 2022

P R E S E N T .

Dr. Aswini  Kumar Mohapatra,                                             President

Sri    Satis  Kumar  Panigrahi,                                               Member.

 

Spandana Choudhury, Pravati  Nivas, Hatipathar  Road, Infront of H.P. Gas Go-down,  Po/Dist: Rayagada.      (Odisha). 765  001.

Cell No. 637109434                                                    …. Complainant.

Versus.

1.The   Marketing  Manager, Micromax Pvt. Ltd.,  21/14A, phase-II, Naraina  Industrial Area Delhi-110028..                                                             

2.The Manager, Savan Retailer  Pvt. Ltd., 2^nd. Floor, Plot No. 82, Sector-44, Gurgaon , Haryana-122003 IN, Gurgaon, Hariyana- 122002/

3. The Manager,  Savan Retailers Pvt. Ltd., Instakart Services Pvt. Ltd., Plot  No. 230,231,Aarna Projects, Old Delhi Road,  Simla Mouza  Dist:  Hoogly, Kolkata, West Bengal(India)-712203.

4.The  Manager,  Micromax Head Office, Micromax Informatic Ltd.,  286 A, Udyog  Vihar, :hase-IV, Gurugram- 122015, Hariyana (India).                                     … Opposite parties.

Counsel for the parties:                                 

For the complainant: - Self..

For the O.P No.1  & 4 :- Set   Exparte.

For the O.P. No.2   & 3  :- Sri   Rama  Kanta  Jena, Advocate, Rayagada..

                                                          J u d g e m e n t.

          The  present disputes arises out of the complaint petition filed by the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps for non refund of  purchase  price  towards defective  Mobile set which was not functioning within the warranty period. The brief facts of the case  has  summarised here under.       

That  the complainant  had purchased  a   Micromax IN 1b Blue, 64 GB  X18K7SJ  HSN 85171290  IMEI No.35297361972436  through  on line  vide Invoice No.FABBHT2200007769 dt.6.7.2021  from the O.P No.3 by paying   consideration   a sum of Rs.7,999/-. The O.Ps. had   sold  the  said set to the complainant providing  one year warranty period. The  above set   found defective  within the warranty  period i.e. Set started trouble  after  four months, automatic switch off and sudden shut down of display system, battery becoming hot and down and became totally useless and defunct. The complainant complained the matter to the  O.Ps.from time to time  over phone  but the O.Ps are turned deaf ear to his request. Inspite of repeated  approach   to the O.Ps for rectification  of the defects but the O.Ps paid deaf ear.   Now the above set is unused.  But  no  action has been taken by the O.Ps till date. Hence this complaint petition  filed by the complainant and prays the District Commission  direct the O.Ps to refund  purchase  price of the above  set and such other relief as the  District  Commission deems fit and proper  for the best interest of justice.

Upon  Notice, the O.P  No.2 & 3(Retailer) put in their appearance and filed  written version through their learned counsel in which  they refuting allegation made against them.  The O.P No.2 & 3 are 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 & 3. Hence the O.P No.2 & 3    prays the District  Commission to dismiss the case against  them  to meet the ends of justice.

On being noticed  the O.P No.1  & 4 (Manufacturer) neither entering in to appear before the District Commission  nor filed their  written version inspite of more than  8(eight) adjournments has been given  to them. Complainant consequently filed his memo and prayer to set exparte of the O.P No.1 & 4.  Observing lapses of around 1 (One) year   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 & 4. The action of the O.P No.1 & 4 are against the principles of  natural justice as envisaged  in C.P. Act. Hence the O.P. No.1 & 4 was 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  against the O.P.  No.1 & 4.

          Heard  arguments from the complainant  and learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 & 3..      We  perused the complaint petition and the document, written version      filed by the   parties.

This District Commission   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.

                From the records it reveals that, the complainant had purchased   Micromax IN 1b Blue, 64 GB  X18K7SJ  HSN 85171290  IMEI No.35297361972436  through  on line  vide Invoice No.FABBHT2200007769 dt.6.7.2021  from the O.P No.3 by paying   consideration   a sum of Rs.7,999/ through on line  Flipkart (copies of the  invoice is available in the file which is marked as Annexure-I). But unfortunately after delivery with in  warranty period the above  set found defective and not functioning. The complainant complained the OPs for necessary repair in turn the OPs  paid deaf  ear.  

.           From the records, it is seen that, the complainant has filed Xerox copy of purchase bill which is in the file marked as Annexure-I.  The complainant had from time to time  approached the O.P No.1 & 4  (Manufacturer) through their Toll free No. for the defective of above  set with complaints where in the O. P No.1 & 4   not heard.

The  O.P. No.2  & 3  (Retailer)  in their written version contended that the  warranty  card can  be availed by  the  complainant  in case of non working and any defect in the product  during  the warranty period from the  O.P.No.1 & 4(Manufacturer). The O.P.No.2 & 3 ‘s (Retailer)  role is only to book the order and to timely  deliver the product in question. At  the time of purchase  order it was clear to the complainant  that for any after sale defects  the manufacturer is only  liable to rectify the same through its authorized service centre. The O.P.No.2 & 3 (Retailer) prays the   District Commission   the present complaint is liable to be dismissed against the O.P. No.2 & 3 (Retailer). In this connection  Apex  courts  citations  are  also mentioned  in the written  version  by the O.P. No. 2 & 3(Retailer).

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 warranty period  of purchase. As the OP No.1 & 4 (Manufacturer)  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 OPs. The District Commission  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 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 commission is inclined to allow the complaint against the O.P  No.1 & 4 (Manufacturer).

                                                            O R D E R

            In  resultant the complaint petition  is allowed  in part against  O.Ps.

The O.P. No.1 & 4 (Manufacturer) are directed to  refund  price  of  mobile  set a sum of Rs.7,999/- to the complainant.  The O.P No. 1 & 4 are directed to  pay Rs.1,500/- towards compensation and cost.

Parties are left to bear their  own cost.

The O.P  No. 2 & 3 (Reseller)  are  ordered   to  refer the matter to the O.P. No. 1 & 4  (Manufacturer) for  early compliance of the above order  and co-operate the complainant for better co-ordination with the O.P.  No.1 & 4  (Manufacturer) to provide satisfying service  for which she is entitled.

            The entire directions shall be carried out with in 30 days from the  date of receipt   of this order.   Copies be served to the parties  free of cost.

Dictated and  corrected by me.   

Pronounced in the open   Commission on       20^th.    .day of   August, 2022.

 MEMBER                                                      PRESIDENT