Orissa

Rayagada

CC/101/2017

Sri Jagamohan Dora - Complainant(s)

Versus

TVS Electronics Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Sri Jagannath Dora

26 Sep 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA,

STATE:  ODISHA.

C.C. Case  No. 101 / 2017.                               Date.    26   .    9   . 2018.

P R E S E N T .

Dr. Aswini  Kumar Mohapatra,                                      President

Sri  Gadadhara  Sahu,                                                       Member.

Smt.Padmalaya  Mishra,.                                                Member

 

Sri Jagamohan Dora, S/O: Sri Basidhara Dora,J.K.Pur,Dist: Rayagada, State:Odisha.   Pin No. 765 017.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         …….Complainant

Vrs.

1.The Propritor, T.V.S Electronics Ltd.,  C/O: DHL, 4^th. Floor,plot No. 193-197, ^ 254-258, 137 & 248-249, Jigani Link Road,  Bommasandra Industrial  Area,Bangalore-562106.

                                                                                       …  Opposite Parties.

For the Complainant:- Sri Jagannath Dora,  Advocate, Rayagada.

For the O.Ps:- Sri  G.S.R.Choudhury, Advocate, Rayagada.

 

 

JUDGEMENT

The  present disputes emerges out of the grievance raised in the  complaint petition filed by the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps for  non refund of price towards   M.I. mobile set  which was found  defective   during warranty period.

Upon  Notice, the O.Ps put in their appearance and filed  written version through their learned counsel in which  they refuting allegation made against them.  The O.Ps  taking one and another pleas in the written version   sought to dismiss the complaint as it is not maintainable  under the C.P. Act, 1986. The facts which are not specifically admitted may be treated  as denial of the O.Ps.   Hence the O.Ps. prays the forum to dismiss the case against  them  to meet the ends of justice.

 

Heard arguments from the learned counsels for  both  the    parties.    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 mobile set Model No. Redmi 3 S Prime Gold 32G from the O.P. by paying a sum of Rs. 8,999/-  with Invoice No. 1470733815284524515 dt. 09.08.2016  with  one year warranty by placing order through  internet vide order No.5160809952131000. But unfortunately after  some  months  of its purchase  the above  set found defective and not functioning  i.e. such as Set over heat,   contacts and apps open slow and not  functioning with  other problems. The complainant complained the O.Ps  for necessary repair in turn the OPs paid deaf ear.   The complainant further approached the O.Ps for return the money which he spent but for no use.

 

            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.

            This forum further observed  when the complainant  found defective of  the above mobile he immediately  approached the   O.P. over phone but not paid deaf ear by the O.P.  The complainant  argued  during the  course of hearing that  inspite of  repeated  approaches to the  O.Ps no action has been taken  for replace or refund the  mobile price.

            The O.P. in their written version contended that  the complainant instead of approaching the authorised service centre has directly come up this   frivolous and concocted complaint. Further the complainant has failed to furnish  any evidence in connection with any communication with the O.P. Additionally, the complainant has  not provided   any evidence regarding manufacturing  defects in the product.  It is therefore clearly established that the complainant  has provided false information in the complaint  to mislead the forum and to unnecessarily harass the O.P  by filing  the false complaint.    

 

            It is admitted fact that the complainant has purchased the above  product namely Redmi 3 S Prime Gold 32G  mobile  through online after being allured by the advertisement of Naaptol Shopping Festival 2016. But no doubt it is a unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite party because the Opposite Party has not acted as per their

advertisement. It is the case of the complainant that since the date of purchase , the product was found defective and after complaint the Opposite Party failed to rectify the same. It is not denied by the opposite parties that the defect in the product is not within the warranty

period and when the defect is found within the warranty period the opposite party is to give

service or replace the same which they assured to the customer. Since the product found

defective after its purchase and the complainant informed the Opposite Party again and

again regarding the defect but the Opposite Party failed to rectify or replace the defect . At

this stage we hold that if the product in question found defective since the date of its

purchase, then it can be presumed that it is defective one and if a defective product 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 asit is appears that the electronic product which was purchased by the complainant had developed defects and the Opposite Party was unable to restore its normal functioning duringthe warranty period. It appears that the complainant invested a substantial amount andpurchased the electronic product 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 same and the defecates were not removed by the Opposite Party who knew the defects from time to time from the complainant.

 

            Word ‘defect’ as defined under Section 2(1)(f) of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986

means any fault, imperfection or shortcoming in the quality, quantity, potency, purity or

standard which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or under any contract, express or implied or as is claimed by the trader in any manner whatsoever in relation to any goods.

 

              In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is concluded that the opposite parties are deficient in their service .Sec.2(1)(g) ‘ Deficiency in Service means “ any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality , nature and manner of performance which is  required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service”. Since the date of purchase , the electronic product given problem for which complainant made complaint to the OP and the OP first time replace the product but the product again found defective and subsequently the OP failed to replace the same ,which amount to deficiency in service on the part of the OP. That it is also a fact that the OP giving alluring and misleading advertisement like giving lottery benefit is drawing customer which  tends to unfair trade practice. Therefore, the O.P is liable to refund the amount of the product  and also liable to pay compensation for mental agony along with cost of litigation for filing this dispute.. Hence, we allowed the complaint partly and dispose of the matter with the following directions.

In view of the above discussion relating to the above case and  In Res-IPSA-Loquiture  as well as  in the light of the settled legal position  discussed  as above referring citations the plea of the  O.Ps to avoid the claim  which is Aliane Juris.  Hence  we allow the above complaint petition  in part.

 

Hence  to  meet the  ends of justice, the following order is passed.      

                                                                        O R D E R

            In  resultant the complaint petition  is allowed  on contest against the O.Ps.

The O.P  is  directed to return back the defective product from the complainant  by paying the price of the Redmi 3 S Prime Gold 32G   a sum of Rs.8,999/-  inter alia  to pay  Rs.1,000/- towards compensation for mental agony  and Rs.500/- towards litigation expenses.

           

            The entire directions shall be carried out with in 45 days from the  date of receipt   of   this order.

            Dictated and  corrected by me.

            Pronounced in the open forum on    26^th.       day of    September, 2018.

 

 

 

MEMBER                                                           MEMBER                                   PRESIDENT