Orissa

Rayagada

CC/92/2017

Debadutta Nayak - Complainant(s)

Versus

W.S Retail. Service Private Limited. - Opp.Party(s)

Self

30 Oct 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA,

STATE:  ODISHA.

C.C. Case  No. 92/ 2017.                                          Date.  30     .    10    . 2018.

P R E S E N T .

Dr. Aswini  Kumar Mohapatra,                                                   President

Sri GadadharaSahu,                                                                        Member.

Smt.PadmalayaMishra,.                                                                                Member

 

Sri Debadutta Nayak,  C/O: Jayaram Jena, At:R.K.Nagar  Post office lane, Sahara office line,  Po/ Dist: Rayagada, State:  Odisha.                                        …….Complainant

Vrs.

1. The Manager, W.S.Retails Services Pvt. Ltd.,  SND Warehouse Shed No. C1, Door No. 4/195, Redhilis, Ambattur Road,  Puzhal Village- 600062.
2. The Manager,  F1 Info Solutions and service private Ltd., Plot No. 556, Sahid Nagar, Bhubaneswar.

… Oppositeparties.

For the Complainant:- Self.

For the O.P. No.1:- Set exparte.

For the O.P  No.2:- Sri Manoj  Kumar Rath, 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 mobile  price  a sum  of Rs.9,999/- which was found  defective   during warranty period.

 

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  06 adjournments has been given  to them. Complainant consequently filed his memo and prayer to set exparte of the O.P No.1.  Observing lapses of around 1(One) year   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.1. 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.

Upon  Notice, the O.P No. 2   put in their appearance and filed  written version through their learned counsels in which  they refuting allegation made against them.  The above O.P No.2  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. 2. Hence the O.P No.  2 prays the forum to dismiss the case against  them  to meet the ends of justice.

The O.P No.2 appeared and filed their written version.  Heard arguments from the  learned counsel for  the  O.P No.2  and from the complainant.    Perused the record, documents, written version  filed by the parties. 

The  parties advanced arguments inter alia  vehemently opposed the complaint 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 Asus Zenfone Max- VU 88651 bearing IMEI No. 353383076420424 and 353383076420432  from the O.P.  No.1  by paying a sum of Rs. 9,999/-  with  Invoice No. chn_puzhal_0120160700072154  dt. 08.07.2016 with  one year warranty( Copies of the invoice is in the file which is marked as Annexure-I). But unfortunately after  few months  of its purchase  the above  set found defective and not functioning  i.e. such as Hanging, Touch not working, Camera not clear, Automatic switch off, Battery is  going heat along with other problems. The complainant complained to  the O.P No.2 (service centre)  for necessary repair on Dt. 28.6.2017 (Copies of the  Service centre report on Dt.28.6.2017 is in the file which is marked as Annexure-2). Even such service  the above defects were persisting in the said set. So the complainant  intimated the same to the O.P. No.1 for replacement or refund of the price of the mobile set   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.  Hence this case.

From the records it is seen that, the complainant has filed Xerox copy of purchase bill and Service centre report.  Hence it is abundantly clear that, the complainant has repeatedly approached the OP.No.2 (Service centre) of the O.P. No.1  for the defective of above  set with complaints where in the OP.No.2 found defect & noted with a comment.

                On examining the whole transactions, it is pertinent to mention here that, there is One year valid warranty for the alleged above set and the defect arose after few months of purchase. As the OPs deliberately lingering to file their written version or any other documents after lapses of above one years, and observing the present situation, and nothing adversary to the complaint as adduced by the OP. The forum relying on the version of the complainant is of the view that, the alleged  set has inherent defect and there is vivid deficiency in service by the OPs declining to redress the grievances of his consumers i.e. the present complainant, hence the complainant is entitled to get the price of the said set or a new same set instead of the defective one along with such substantial compensation for all such harassment having been impounded with mental agony and deprivation of the use for the same  for long time  and so also the cost of litigation. We found there is deficiency in service by the OPs and the complainant is entitled to get relief.

                On appreciation of the evidences adduce before it, the forum is inclined to allow the complaint against the OPs.

                                                                                O R D E R

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

                The O.P. No. 1   is directed to return back the defective product from the complainant  by paying the price of mobile price  a sum of Rs. 9,999/- to the complainant.  Parties are left to bear their own cost.

                The O.P. No.2    is ordered to refer the matter to the O.P. No.1  for early compliance.

                The entire directions shall be carried out with in 45 days from the  date of receipt   of this order.   Copies be served to the parties  free of cost.

Dictated and corrected by me.    

Pronounced in the open forum on         30^th.        day of    October, 2018.

 

MEMBER                                               MEMBER                                                                                              PRESIDENT