Orissa

Rayagada

CC/59/2018

Jagannath Dora - Complainant(s)

Versus

VIVO Mobile India PVT., - Opp.Party(s)

Self

07 Feb 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA,

STATE:  ODISHA.

C.C. Case  No. 59 / 2018.                                         Date.    4   .    2   . 2019.

P R E S E N T .

Dr. Aswini  Kumar Mohapatra,                                      President

Sri GadadharaSahu,                                                          Member.

Smt.PadmalayaMishra,.                                                  Member

 

            Sri Jagannath Dora,  S/O: Sri Bansidhara Dora, At/Po:Kolnara,  Dist:    Rayagada, State:  Odisha.                                                                             …….Complainant

          Vrs.

1. The Manager, Vivo Mobile India Pvt. Ltd., Tech-2,Greater Noida,Utterpradesh.            
2. The Manager, M/S.  Manas  Mobiles, New colony, Rayagada
3. The Manager, Vivo Services Centre, Rayagada(Odisha).
4.                                                                                 

For the Complainant:- Self.

For the O.P No. 2 :- Set exparte.

For the O.Ps 1 & 3 :- Sri Jagadish Panda, 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 rectification  of  defects in the  Vivo mobile set  which was found  defective   during warranty period.

On being noticed  the O.P  No. 2   neither entering in to appear before the forum nor filed their  written version inspite of more than  07 adjournments has been given  to them. Complainant consequently filed his memo and prayer to set exparte of the O.P No. 2  Observing lapses of around 10 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. No.  2. The action of the O.P No.  2  is against the principles of  natural justice as envisaged  under section  13(2) (b)(ii) of the Act. Hence the O.P. No.  2  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. 1&  3 appeared through their learned counsel and filed   written version refuting allegation made against them.  The O.P No. 1  and 3  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.P  No. 1 and 3. Hence the O.P No. 1 and 3  prays the forum to dismiss the case against  them  to meet the ends of justice.

 

 Heard arguments from the learned counsel for the    O.P  No.1 and 3  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 VIVO V6 from the  from the O.P.  No.2  by paying a sum of Rs. 18,900/-  with Retail Invoice No. 900   dt. 30.04.2017  having one year  warranty bearing IMEI No.863882033125524   ( Copies of the invoice is in the file which is marked as Annexure-I). But unfortunately after  use of some  months   the above  set found defective and the complainant had detected  soft wear problems, hanging  server times. The complainant complained to  the O.P No.3 (service centre)  for necessary repair.  Even such service  the above defects were persisting in the said set. So the complainant  intimated the same to the O.P. No.3 for replacement of the defective parts   in turn the OPs paid deaf ear.     Hence this case.

            On perusal of the record  it is revealed that  the fact of the  purchase  of above set    is not denied by the  O.Ps.  It is admitted position the complainant having  purchased   above goods for  consideration  having the warrantee.

It is admitted position of law that when   a  goods sold  by the  manufacturer has under gone  servicing   the complainant is entitled to thoroughly  check up  of the above set   and   to  remove   the defects  of   the above set  with fresh warrantee .

Coming to the merits of the case the complainant had purchased the above set  from the O.P No. 2   on payment of consideration  an amount of Rs. 18,900/- on Dt. 30.04.2017 (copies of the  retail  invoice) marked as Annexure-I.  On perusal of the record we observed  the complainant  after using  some months for rectification of defects handed over the same to the O.P. No.3 (service centre) for repair.

            The  O.P. No. 1 & 3   in their written contended that  the complainant  has attended with the service in number of occasions and the O.P. No.3 has serviced the said set, at that time the complainant  has not raised any complaint before  the  service persons.  That  the  complainant will  not come under the meaning of  consumer as defined in Section -2 sub clause (d) of the C.P. Act, 1986 and the complaint is not maintainable.  There is no prior notice to the O.P. No.3 and the complainant directly filed the complaint before the forum. The  complainant has visited   the O.P. No.3 authorised service centre at Rayagada on the service dates, but  the  complainant  has never complained/narrated regarding the soft wear problems, hangings all are false and hereby denied and the complainant has to put strict proof of the same. As the complaint allegations made in the complaint   are all false and created as such the  complaint put to strict proof of the same.   More particularly after receipt of the the complaint from the complainant, the O.P. No.3 after observing all the norms and all testing’s handed over to the complainant  with a motto to provide good and proper service to its customers. The responsibility of authorised service centre is when the  above set was placed for service  with certain complaints  has to be rectified along with other general services such as soft wear problem, hanging and the above set will be delivered after due inspection of the authorised  person of the service centre and the  complainant will take delivery of the above set  only after the test drive as  he fully satisfied and duly  signed  by the  complainant with the service done at the authorised service centre.  As per our  service record  except minor  rectifications there is   no manufacturing  defects in the above set and minor complaints  only due to in proper usage of the above set. As such the complaint  is not maintainable as to be dismissed.  The O.Ps  are  not liable to pay any amount  of compensation as prayed in the complaint.   As per the  instruction the  complainant O.Ps are given proper service  in as much as the O.Ps have rectified  all defects of the mobile set in question   to the satisfaction of the complainant & there is no defect in the said set.  As such the O.Ps are not liable to pay cost & compensation as  the complaint  is not maintainable. Hence entitled to be dismissed.

            The O.Ps  considering the exigencies   of  the matter with out any basis   in the right time properly settled the disputes  at his end to avoid further litigation by  over looking  all the deficiencies  without contesting the present case  in the sense of humanitarian point of view  by following  the principles of  natural  justice in view of justice as contemplated  the  Modos  Operandi  of the O.Ps   no doubt  worthy of credence.

            We perused the documents   filed by the complainant  as well as the O.Ps.  In our considered view   there is nothing  to disbelieve  the contents of the O.Ps regarding  their service  to  the satisfaction of the complainant  and forum do not find any reason  to hold the O.Ps.

                Accordingly the present dispute mitigated  and the  case stands disposed   but O.Ps wriggled out of  liabilities & the  case closed against  them    as  the  complainant   do not want to  proceed  with  the case further against the O.Ps  after rectification the defects of the mobile set. Parties are left  to bear their own cost.

Dictated and corrected by me

Pronounced on this          4^th.         Day of       February,   2019.

               

                 

                Member.                                                             Member.                                      President