Orissa

Rayagada

CC/300/2015

Sri Nares Kumar Kukreja - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Proprietor, M/s Indira Fancy Store, Rayagad - Opp.Party(s)

Sri Rajendra Kumar Senapati

27 Jun 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA

                                                    C.C. Case  No.300/ 2015.

                                                                       

 P R E S E N T .

Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash, LL.B,                             President.

Sri Gadadhar Sahu,B.Sc.                                        Member

Sri  Naresh Kumar Kukreja, aged about 38 years, S of Late Nanakram Idnani, Resident of New Colony, Rayagada, Po/Dist. Rayagada.                                                              ………Complainant

Vrs.

 

1.                  Prop. M/s Indira Fancy Store, Station Road, Rayagada, 765001.

2.                  The Care Manager, SP Infocity, Industrial Plot No.243,Udyog  Vihar, Phase 1,Dundaheram,Gurgaon,Dist.Haryana,India-122016.                                                                                                                                                               ……...Opp.Parties

Counsel for the parties:

For the complainant: In Person

For the O.Ps: Exparte

 

                                                            JUDGMENT

                        The facts of the complaint  in brief is that,  the complainant has purchased  one  Nokia mobile set  from O.p. No.1 with a  consideration of Rs.29,990/- on 08.02.2015 vide Retail Invoice No.3258 with one year warranty    but  after its  purchase set mobile set  was  found defective  and did not work properly  for which  the complainant informed to the O.p. No.1 and  requested him to replace the mobile with a new one  but the O.P 1 refused to replace the handset  and asked the complainant to approach the  Customer Services Centre  at Bhubaneswar  and the complainant approached  the  Service Centre on 16.07.2015 to rectify the said defects but the service centre  after verification has replied that the said model had a manufacturing defect and hence finding no other option  the complainant  approach this forum and prayed to direct the O.ps  to replace the mobile set  with a new one and  award compensation of Rs.10,000/-towards mental agony and Rs.5000/- towards litigation costs  . Hence, this complaint.

                         On being noticed, neither the O.ps appeared nor filed any written version and as  the O.ps failed to appear before this forum despite service of notice, the proceeding was set exparte against them.

                        Heard and perused the complaint petition and documents filed by the complainant and we accept the grievance of the complainant. The Complainant  argued that the O.ps have sold a defective  mobile set  to the complainant and claimed that the O.ps caused deficiency in service and deprived of the complainant of enjoyment of the mobile set  since the date of  its purchase  which caused mental agony and harassment to the complainant.

Now we have to see whether there was any negligence of the Ops  in providing  after sale service  to the complainant as alleged ?

 

                             We perused the documents filed by the complainant.  Since the mobile set found defective after its purchase    and   the complainant  informed the Ops regarding the defect but the  Ops   failed to remove  the defect . At this stage we hold that  if the mobile set  require  servicing since  the date of its purchase, then it can be presumed that it is defective one and if the defective mobile set  is sold to the complainant , the complainant is entitled to get refund of the price of the article or to replace a new  one or  remove the defects  and also the   complainant is entitled  and has a right to claim compensation and cost to meet his mental agony , financial loss.  In the instant case  as it is appears that the mobile set  which was purchased by the complainant had developed  defects and the O.ps were unable to restore its normal functioning during the warranty period. It appears that the complainant invested  a substantial amount and purchased the mobile set  with an expectation to have the effective benefit of use of the article. In this case, the complainant was deprived of getting beneficial use of the article and deprived of using the mobile set  for such  and the defecates were not removed by the O.ps who  know the defects from time to time from the complainant.

Hence, in our view the complainant has right to claim compensation to meet  his mental agony, financial loss. Hence,  it is ordered.

                                               ORDER

                        The  opposite parties  are directed to replace  the mobile  set with a new one of the  same model and pay  compensation of Rs.5,000/-  for mental agony undergone by the complainant and cost of Rs.500/- . Further, we direct the Ops to pay the aforesaid award amount  within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the O.Ps are liable to pay  interest  @  12%  p.a. on the above awarded amount till  the date of payment. Accordingly the complaint is allowed.

                        Pronounced in open forum today on this 25^th day of  May,2016 under the seal and signature of this forum.

                         A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements , be forwarded to the parties    free of charge.

 

 

            Member                                                                                               President

Documents relied upon:

By the complainant:

1. Xerox copy of  Retail/Tax Invoice.

 

By the Opp.Party: Nil

 

                                                                                                           President