Orissa

Rayagada

CC/261/2016

A. Nagaraju Voona Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Self

14 Feb 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA

 

                                                 C.C. Case  No.261/ 2016.

P R E S E N T .

Sri Gadadhara Sahu,B.Sc.                                      Member

Smt.Padmalaya Mishra,LL.B                                  Member

Sri A.Nagaraju, C/o Voona Kumar, Nehru Nagar,4^th Line, Rayagda, Residing near Buduravalsa U.P.School, Po/Ps/ Dist. Rayagada, Odisha.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 ………Complainant

                                                            Vrs.

1. W.S.Retail Services Pvt. Ltd., Ozone Mani Tech Park No.56/18 B Block 9^th Floor, Gaviyapalaya, Hosur Road,Bangalore,Karnataka,560068,India.
2. M/s S.N.D Warehouse, Shed No.CI, Door No.4/195,Redhillis Ambattur Road, Road, Pizhal Village,Chennai,Tamilnadu,600062.
3. M/s Silicon Computer Shoppe,Authorised Service Centre of OP 1, D.No.29.2.52 Sing Hotel Jn, Near District Courts,Dabagardens,Visakhapatnam,530020.

                                                                                                            ………...Opp.Parties

Counsel for the parties:

For the complainant: In Person

For the O.P No.1 :  Sri  R.K.Jena, Advocate, Rayagada.

For the O.P 2 & 3:  Set Exparte

                                                                        JUDGMENT

                        The facts of the complaint  in brief is that,  the complainant has purchased  a   Mobile Motorola VN38039 from O.p. No.1 with a  consideration of Rs.18,499/- on 18.10.2015 vide Invoice No.S:S131201453(1)  with one year warranty    but  the mobile set started problems within its warranty period  and as such it was handed over  to the OP 3  and the OP 3 instead of giving free service    he has charged Rs.8,000/-  vide bill No.24. dt.23.01.2016  and subsequently also  the set was given for service on 13.06.2016  for which Rs.500/- was paid  to the OP3 as such the Ops have violated their warranty condition. After such service also  the mobile is not working properly and the set is having inherent manufacturing defect in it . Hence, prayed  to direct the O.Ps  to   refund the  cost of the mobile  Rs.18,499/-   and Rs.8,500/- which was paid for service charges and award with  cost and   compensation. Hence, this complaint.

                       

                        On being noticed,  the O.p 1 appeared  and filed any written version  inter alia denying the petition allegations on all its material particulars. The O.P 2 & 3 neither appeared nor filed written version as such the O.p 2 & 3 were set exparte.

                        It is submitted by the O.p No.1 that   the complainant has suppressed  the material facts  and not approached  with clean hands and trying to mislead the forum by presenting the concocted and  all crooked stories, hence the present complaint is not maintainable  and liable to be dismissed.  The OP 1  is carrying on the business of sale of goods manufactured/produced by other manufacturers and the OP 1  is ;not  engaged in sale of any goods manufactured or produced by its own.  The products sold by the OP 1 carries manufacturer’s warranty and as a reseller, involvement of OP 1 in the entire transaction is limited only to sell  the products of various manufacturers and in the present complaint, the manufacturer has not been impleaded as an OP despite being the necessary party. There has neither been any shortage of supply nor any deficiency of service on the part of the OP 1. Liability to provide after sale services does not lie upon the OP 1 as the OP 1  is not the service centre  engaged by the manufacturer  and hence no  cause of action lies against the                       O.p1. Therefore the reliefs prayed for by the complainant against the OP 1  is wholly unreasonable and unsustainable in law and the OP 1 is not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant and thus the complaint against the OP 1 is liable to be dismissed.

                        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 ?

We perused the documents filed by the complainant.  Since the mobile set found defective after its purchase    and   the complainant  informed the Ops regarding the defect but the  Ops  failed to remove  the defect . At this stage we hold that  if the mobile set  require  servicing since  the date of its purchase, then it can be presumed that it is defective one and if the defective mobile set  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  as it is appears that the mobile set  which was purchased by the complainant had developed  defects and the O.ps were unable to restore its normal functioning during the warranty period. It appears that the complainant invested a substantial amount and purchased the mobile set 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 mobile set  for such  and the defecates were not removed by the O.ps who  know the defects from time to time from the complainant.

Hence, in our view the complainant has right to claim compensation to meet his mental agony, financial loss. Hence, it is ordered.

 

                                             ORDER

                        The  opposite Parties    is  directed to refund the cost of the mobile set i.e. Rs.18,499/- and service charges of  Rs.8,500/- and cost of Rs.500/-  within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the O.Ps are liable to pay  interest  @  12%  p.a. on the above awarded amount till  the date of payment. Accordingly the complaint is allowed.

 

                       

 

                        Pronounced in open forum today on this                day March, 2017 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                                                                                               Member

Documents relied upon:

By the complainant:

1. Xerox copy of  Retail Invoice.
2. Xerox copy of  Service Centre
3. Xerox copy of Bill of  service charges

 

 

By the Opp.Party: Nil                                     

                                                                                                            Member