Orissa

Rayagada

CC/159/2017

Shaik Sabuddin - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Propriter, M/s Majhigouri Telecom - Opp.Party(s)

Sri Sukanta Dash

11 Jun 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA,

STATE:  ODISHA.

C.C. Case  No. 159/ 2017.                        Date.      11 .    06    . 2018.

P R E S E N T .

Dr. Aswini  Kumar Mohapatra,                                      President

Sri GadadharaSahu,                                                          Member.

Smt.PadmalayaMishra,.                                                  Member

 

Sri  ShaikSabuddin,  S/O: ShaikMadina, At: Raniguda  Farm,   Po/ Dist:Rayagada, State:  Odisha.                                                                                                        …….Complainant

Vrs.

1.The Proprietor,  M/S. Majhigouri Telecom, Hatipathar Road, Rayagada(Odisha).                 

2.The  Chief Executive Officer, Celkon  Impex Pvt. Ltd.,  D No. 1-62/2/32, Kavuri Hills,  Madhapur, Hyderabad,500081,Telengana.

                                                                             Opposite parties.

For the Complainant:- Sri Sukanta Dash & associates, Advocate, Rayagada.

For the O.P No.1:- Set  exparte.

For the O.P. No.2:- Self.

JUDGMENT

       The  curx of the case is that  the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps for  non refund of 4G tablet price within warranty period for which  the complainant  sought for redressal of the grievances raised by the complainant.

On being noticed  the O.P No.1    neither entering in to appear before the forum nor filed their  written version inspite of more than  04 adjournments has been given  to them. Complainant consequently filed his memo and prayer to set exparte of the O.Ps.  Observing lapses of around 6 months  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.P No1. The action of the O.P No.1  is  against the principles of  natural justice as envisaged  under section  13(2) (b)(ii) of the Act. Hence the O.P No.1  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.

On being noticed  the O.P. No.2  in person appeared  before the  forum and filed written version interalia  challenged  the maintainability of the  petition before the forum. The averments made in the  petition are  all false, and O.Ps  deny   each and every allegation made in the petition. The O.Ps taking other grounds in the written version   sought to dismiss the complaint as it is not maintainable  under the C.P. Act, 1986.  The O.Ps prays the forum to dismiss the complaint petition  for the best interest of justice.

 

The O.P No.2  appeared and defend the case.  Heard arguments from the    O.P No.2  and from the complainant.    Perused the record, documents,  written version filed by the parties. 

This forum  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, there is no dispute that the  complainant had purchased a  CELKON Diamond 4G TAB 7 black & blue  inter alia IMEI No.911507050153404 and Sl. No.2016050007671from the O.P. No.1    by paying a sum of Rs. 6,200/-  with cash/credit bill No. 47 Dt.26.1.2017   with  one year warranty. (Copies of the  bill is in the file which is marked as Annexure-I). But unfortunately after  some  months  of its purchase  the above  set found defective and not functioning on Dt.26.4.2017  i.e. such as problem  was about the  failure  of the display of the Celkon Tablet  and not  functioning with  other problems. The complainant complained the O.Ps Service centre, at Rayagada  on Dt. 26.4.2017     for necessary repair (Copies of the service job sheet is in the file which is marked as Annexure-2). But once again within  7 days  the same problems was found in the above set  and the said set was not working due to poor quality. The complainant further approached the O.Ps for return the money which he spent but for no use.

The O.P No.2 (Company)  in  their written version  has not disputed towards purchase of  above set and also not denied towards repair of the above set at Service centre, Rayagada  on Dt. 26.4.2017.

The O.P. No. 2   in their written version para No. 4 contended that the complainant was supposed to return the job  sheet which was  handed over to him while  submitting his handset  which was issued by the authorized service centre of O.P. No.2 on Dt. 26.4.2017 but he has not returned the jobsheet to the authorized service centre of the O.P. No.2 while taking the delivery  of the said Tablet phone from the authorized service centre of the O.P.No. 2 in Rayagada on Dt. 23.5.2017  with a malafied  intention of putting blame on the company and the services provided by the company.

The O.P. No. 2   in their written version para No. 5 contended that the complainant was demanding only the replacement of the product  without  submitting the said tablet phone. The authorized service centre tried to convince him  to submit the product to rectify the complaint up to the    satisfaction of the complainant  but he has refused to do so and was demanding only the replacement which is not  as per the guidelines of the warranty policy.

  The consumer protection act is a socio economic beneficial law, intended for speedy delivery of justice to the aggrieved consumers and every complaint is supposed to be disposed off within a timeframe in consonance with the objects of the benevolent legislature. But inordinate delay in procurement of evidences and counter by the parties have emerged for reaching delirium to achievement of such objects.

.           It reveals from the record that, the complainant has filed copy of retail invoice of OP.No.1 vide no.47 dt.26.01.2017, copy of service job sheet of service centre dt.26.04.2017& warranty paper of the above set.

.           From the above evidences it is found that the complainant has purchased the above set on dt.26.01.2017 and the same became defect with in valid warranty period. As per the service warranty conditions the complainant handed over the defective set to the OP.s for necessary repair showing failure of the display, but neither of the OPs service centre  repaired the set  perfectly through their service center nor replaced the set with a new one and expressed that they are unable to repair the set as the set has some serious problems and hand over the set to the complainant in same condition who received the same on protests. The complainant filed copy of retail invoice and service job sheet issued by the OP.No.1 & Service centre. Considering the evidences, submissions by the complainant, we feel that, the above set procured by the complainant has some serious problems and after all efforts by the Ops Service centre  the set could not rectified and became useless. Hence the complainant  going through mental agony with the defective set, and also inflicted financial losses and filed this complaint under compulsion. 

.           From the above discussions and perusing the documents filed by the complainant we are of the view that the alleged set of the complainant has some manufacturing defect and the OPs despite receiving notice from this forum are failed to render service to the present complainant. The action of OPs in the total transaction is highhanded, arbitrary, null and void and the OPs violate the terms and conditions of contract Act.  Due to defect of the above set and non  response from the O.Ps the complainant has purchased another  set from Samsung company (copies of the retail invoice dt.5.2.2018  which is issued in favour of the complainant is in the file  which  is  marked as Annexure-3). So the complainant wants money towards the defective  set. This forum observed  there is gross negligence and deficiency in service on the part of OPs and the complainant is entitled for relief.

            Hence the complaint is allowed  in part  against the OPs  with costs.

 

 

O  R  D  E  R

.          

            The Opposite party No. 2 to return back the defective product from the complainant  by paying the price of the  above  set  a sum of Rs. 6,200/-  inter alia to pay Rs.1,000/- towards the cost of litigation to the complainant.

           

            The  O.P. No.1 is directed to refer the matter to the O.P. No.2 for early compliance of the above order.

.          

            All the above directions shall be complied by the O.Ps with in 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.Service the free copies to the parties.

           

            Dictated and corrected by me.

            Pronounced in the open forum on   11^th.   day of    June,  2018.

 

 

 

Member.                                             Member.                                             President