Orissa

Rayagada

CC/177/2016

Shiuli Sinha - Complainant(s)

Versus

W.S Retail Services Pvt., Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Self

12 Jan 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA

 

                                                 C.C. Case  No.177/ 2016.

P R E S E N T .

Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash, LL.B,                             President.

Sri Gadadhara Sahu,B.Sc.                                      Member

Shiuli Sinha, aged 22 years, D/o Ashish Kumar Sinha, Near Uma Shankar Hall, Venketeshwar Kalyan Mandaap Lane, Po/Ps/ Dist. Rayagada.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             ………Complainant

                                                            Vrs.

1. WS Retail Services Pvt. Ltd.,Warehouse Address: Crescent 148,2^nd Floor,Next to Gopalan Mall,Mysore Road,Bangalore,Karnataka,India-560026.
2. WS Retail Services Pvt. Ltd., Warehouse Address: No.42/1 & 43,Kacherakanahalli Village, Jadigenahalli Hobli, Hoskota Taluk,Bangalaore,Karnataka,India-460067.

                                                                                                            ………...Opp.Parties

Counsel for the parties:

For the complainant: In Person

For the O.P No.1 & 2:  Sri  U.K.Mishra, Advocate, Rayagada.

 

 

                                                                 JUDGMENT

                        The facts of the complaint  in brief is that,  the complainant has purchased  a   Mobile ASUS ZENFONE-2 from O.p. No.1 with a  consideration of Rs.12,349/- on 08.06.2015   but after two to three months of its purchase the  mobile set given various problems for which  the complainant  given the set  to the service  centre at Bhubaneswar and  at Visakhapatnam  and then went to Sambalpur  but  all the above service center failed to rectify the defects. At last the complainant   finding no other option approached this forum for relief  and prayed  to direct the O.Ps  to   refund the  cost of the mobile  Rs.12,349/- with  cot and   compensation. Hence, this complaint.

                       

                        On being noticed,  the O.p 1  & 2 appeared  through their counsel  and filed any written version  inter alia denying the petition allegations on all its material particulars.

                        It is submitted by the Ops  that they not the manufacturer of the Asus mobile and the customer  did not opt to avail the 30 day replacement guarantee provided by the Ops which  prove that the Asus  mobile was perfectly in working condition  when the same was delivered to the complainant.  The manufacturer  and its authaorised service centre should be added as a party for redressal of grievances of the complainant. It is also denied that the complainant has suffered  or she is entitled to a sum of Rs.12,349/- or any part  thereof  or there had been any harassment towards here for mental agony or physically and the complainant is not entitled to sum of Rs.3,000/- as litigation charges or any other sum and hence prayed to dismiss the complaint.                       

                        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. In reply, the O.ps stated that the O.ps are  merely a seller and not the service center of the manufacturer and   the O.Ps  are  not liable to provide any after sales services to the complainant and it is only the liability of the manufacturer or its service centre  and the complainant should be added  them as a party for redressal of grievances.

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

 

 

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. It is alleged by the complainant that  the mobile set was  found defective after two to three months of its purchase and she went to Service Centre  at  Bhubaneswar, Visakhapatnam and Sambalpur but she has filed only one job sheet of service centre, Bhubaneswar  in which  it is mentioned that the date of complaint is 31/05/2016 at 16.09  and the warranty expiry on 06.02.2016. On verification of  retail invoice it reveals that the  complainant has purchased the mobile on 08/06/2015  and she claims that after two to three months of its purchase  the mobile was found problem but the job sheet shows that she went to service centre on 31/05/16  that means she  went to the service centre after expiry of warranty. At this stage we hold that  if the mobile set  require  service during its warranty period and the if  Ops fail to provide proper service as per their warranty condition, then it can be  termed as deficiency in service  on the part of the Ops and  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 but in the instant case the   complainant used the mobile without any defect during its warranty period and the complainant  also fails to file the  job  sheet of other service centre i.e. Visakhapatnam and Sambalpur . Since the complainant  fails to establish her case by filing documentary evidence regarding its defect in the warranty period, we do not believe the allegations of the complainant and also  we do not found any fault from the side of the Ops and  as such the complainant is not entitled to get any relief. Hence, it is ordered.

                                                ORDER

                         In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the opinion that  the  complaint petition is having no merit  and hence, the complaint petition is dismissed . No costs. Parties to bear their own cost.        

                        Pronounced in the open forum today on this 26^th  day of December,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 Invoice.
2. Xerox copy of details of service centre
3. Xerox copy of Product service form dt.31/05/2016

 

 

By the Opp.Party: Nil                                                                          President