View 9723 Cases Against Mobile
View 358 Cases Against Mobile World
Sri Prasanta Kumar Panigrahi filed a consumer case on 10 May 2018 against The Mobile World in the Rayagada Consumer Court. The case no is CC/73/2017 and the judgment uploaded on 07 Aug 2018.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, RAYAGADA,
STATE: ODISHA.
C.C. Case No. 73/ 2017. Date. 10 . 5 . 2018.
P R E S E N T .
Dr. Aswini Kumar Mohapatra, President
Sri Gadadhara Sahu, Member.
Smt. Padmalaya Mishra,. Member
Sri Prasanta Kumar Panigrahi, S/O: Sri Rajendra Prasad Panigrahi, Indira Nagar, Po/ Dist.Rayagada, State: Odisha.. …….Complainant
Vrs.
3.The Manager, Syntech Technology India Pvt. Ltd., F-2, Block No. B-1, Ground Floor, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi, 110044.
4.The Manager, U.D. Steel solutions Pvt. Ltd., Jessore Road, Flat No.9(B), Ground Floor, Kolkatta- 700089. ……...Opp.Parties
For the Complainant:-Self..
For the O.Ps:- Set exparte.
JUDGMENT.
The curx of the case is that the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service against afore mentioned O.Ps for non refund mobile price within warranty period for which the complainant sought for redressal of the grievances raised by the complainant.
On being noticed the O.Ps neither entering in to appear before the forum nor filed their written version inspite of more than 5 adjournments has been given to them. Complainant consequently filed his memo and prayer to set exparte of the O.Ps. Observing lapses of around 1 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 the counsel for the complainant set the case exparte against the O.Ps. The action of the O.Ps is against the principles of natural justice as envisaged under section 13(2) (b)(ii) of the Act. Hence the O.P. 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. Heard from the complainant. We perused the complaint petition and the document filed by the complainant.
FINDINGS.
From the records it reveals that, there is no dispute that the complainant had purchased a mobile set Model No. GIONEE M 5 PLUS bearing IMEI No. 860623030221186 from the O.P. No.1 by paying a sum of Rs. 27,900/- with Sales Invoice Bill No. 3250 dt. 15.06.2016 with one year warranty (Copies of the bill is in the file marked as Annexure-I). But unfortunately after some months of its purchase the above set found defective and not functioning . The complainant complained the O.Ps Service centre for necessary repair 2 Times i.e. on Dt. 3.3.2017, Dt. 24.3.2017( Copies of the Service centre report is in the file which are marked as Annexure-2 & 3). In spite of repeated attempt by the Service engineer of the O.Ps the above set could not run for longer time. The complainant further approached the O.Ps for return the money which he spent but for no use. 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 marked as Annexure-I. Hence it is abundantly clear that, the complainant had purchased the above set from the O.P. The complainant also approached the service centre two times but no fruitful result received by the complainant from the O.Ps.
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 some month of use. As the OPs 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 OP, the forum 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 or a new same set instead of the defective one 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 forum is inclined to allow the complaint against the OPs.
O R D E R
In resultant the complaint petition stands allowed in part on exparte against the O.Ps.
The O.Ps 3 & 4 directed to return back the defective product from the complainant by paying the price of the above mobile set a sum of Rs. 27,900/-. There is no order as to cost and compensation.
The O.Ps 1 & 2 are directed to refer the matter to the O.Ps 3 & 4 for early compliance of the above order.
The entire directions shall be carried out with in 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.
Service the copies of the order to the parties free of cost.
Dictated and corrected by me
Pronounced on this 10 th. day of May, 2018.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.