Orissa

Debagarh

CC/48/2017

Dileswar Swain, aged about 50 years, S/O-Late Kesaba Swain - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Proprietor, Bindwasini Mobile Center - Opp.Party(s)

28 Feb 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE COURT OF THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, DEOGARH.

CD Case No-  48 /2017.

Present-        Sri Dipak Kumar Mahapatra, President, Smt. Jayanti Pradhan,

Member (W) and Smt. Arati Das, Member.

 

Dileswar Swain, aged about 50 years,

S/O-Late Kesaba Swain,

At-Mahuldhipasahi,P.O/P.S/Dist-Deogarh.                                                       …         Complainant

 

                                                     Versus

1. The Proprietor,

Bindwasini Mobile centre

Shivlok Complex,Gaiety Road,Sambalpur.

           

2. The Proprietor,

Gionee Mobile Care,

Authorised Service Centre,

 

3. The Manufacturer,

SYNTECH TECHNOLOGY PVT. LTD,

E-9,Block No-1,Ground Floor,

Mahan Cooperative Industrial Estate,

Mathura Road,New Delhi-110044.                                                           …     Opposite Parties

 

For the Complainant      : -        Nem

  For the Opp.Parties-    :-         None

      

                                    DATE OF HEARING: 18.02.2019, DATE OF ORDER: 28.02.2019.

Sri Dipak Kumar Mahapatra, President:-Brief facts of the case is that the Complainant has purchased one Mobile Handset of make GIONEE along with a Charger and Battery from the O.P-1 for an amount of Rs.12,000/-(Rupees Thousand).But when the said mobile handset shown some problems as the battery could not be able to retain charge rather drain it after set to fully charged, gradually reduces to zero and switched off within one hour of full charge. The Complainant informed this matter to the O.Ps and requested him to solve this problem as the mobile was under one year Manufacturer Warranty and the battery was for six months warranty from the date of purchase. But the O.P-2 after receiving the Mobile hand set make the Complainant to visit his shop for more than 4 to 5 times and at last handed over the same but after some days the problem was persisted and the complainant again tried to make contact with the O.P-2 but he (O.P-2) betrayed him with harsh words and direct him to contact the manufacturer. After receipt of notice issued by this Forum the O.Ps remained silent and did not appear before this Forum and dtd. 06.02.2019 the O.Ps are declared Ex-parte. As the Complainant harassed by the O.Ps in spite of a Warranty Card, the complainant sustained financial loss, mental pain and agony due to Deficiency in service and Unfair Trade Practice caused by the O.Ps.

 

POINTS OF DETERMINATION:-

1. Whether the Complainant is comes under the purview of Consumer Protection Act.1986?
2. Whether the O.Ps has committed any Deficiency in Service to the Complainant?

               From the above discussion and materials available on records we inferred that the Complainant is a consumer as he has purchased a mobile phone from the O.P-1 with a promise to provide after sales services but neglected the purchaser/consumer/Complainant when he faced certain defects in the said mobile handset after using the same for some months. But despites several visits to the O.P-1,he could not get it repaired through the dealer as he (the dealer) has not provided required after sale services to the Complainant though the said handset was within warranty period. The O.P-1 has neglected to provide necessary after sale services and shifted the burden to the manufacturer. But Ops were at least required to repair it. Neither they repaired it properly nor did they replace the defective mobile phone to the complainant, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of O.Ps. This matter has been well settled in the case of Pallavi vs. Apple India Pvt. Ltd. decided by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Punjab , Chandigarh on 7^th  September, 2017.Hence the O.Ps have committed “Deficiency in Service”  u/s-2(1)(g) of Consumer Protection Act-1986, by not providing proper services to the Complainant.                                                          

 

ORDER

The Complaint petition is allowed. The O.Ps are directed to replace the defective mobile handset and provide him a brand new Mobile Handset of same make and model i.e. make GIONEE of model No-F103 PRO(Gold) or refund the cost of the mobile handset of Rs.12,000/-with 9% interest  within 30(thirty days) of receiving this order. The O.Ps are further directed to pay Rs. 3,000/-(Rupees Three Thousand) as compensation and Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) towards the cost of litigation within 30 (Thirty) days of receiving of this order, failing which, the complainant is at liberty to proceed in due process of law.          

            Order pronounced in the open court today i.e, on 28^th day of February-2019 under my hand and seal of this Forum.

Office is directed to supply copies of the Order to the parties free of costs receiving acknowledgement of the delivery thereof.

 

  I agree,                                          I  agree,                                         

 

MEMBER.(W)                               MEMBER.                                       PRESIDENT.

                                                Dictated and Corrected

                                                                By me.

 

                                                           PRESIDENT.