Orissa

Rayagada

CC/320/2016

Sri P.L. Hari Prasad - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Self

06 Jan 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA

 

                                                 C.C. Case  No.320/ 2016.

P R E S E N T .

Sri Gadadhara Sahu,B.Sc.                                      Member

Smt.Padmalaya Mishra,LL.B                                  Member

Sri P.L.Hari Prasad,aged about 35 years, Bharat Time Centre,Main Road,Po/Ps/ Dist. Rayagada,Odisha.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              ………Complainant

                                                            Vrs.

1. WS Retail Services Pvt. Ltd., Warehouse Address: No.42/1 & 43,Kacherakanahalli Village, Jadigenahalli Hobli, Hoskota Taluk,Bangalaore,Karnataka,India-560067.
2. Service Centre,ESC Visakhapatnam,Ashok 10.5.11,Ram Nagar, Visakhapatnam.

                                                                                                            ………...Opp.Parties

Counsel for the parties:

For the complainant: In Person

For the O.P No.1 & 2:  Sri  R.K.Jena, Advocate, Rayagada.

 

 

                                                                 JUDGMENT

                        The facts of the complaint  in brief is that,  the complainant has purchased  a   Mobile VL37043 Lenovo  from O.p. No.1 with a  consideration of Rs.8719.43/- on 26.10.2016   but after receiving the same the complainant noticed defects in it  and contacted the OIP 1 and the OP 1 has given the address of the OP 2 and service provider.  Accordingly it was given for service at Visakhapatnam but the defect  could not be rectified by the service centre and the  mobile set is still in defect condition with the complainant. 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.8719.43  with  cost and   compensation. Hence, this complaint.

                       

                        On being noticed,  the O.p 1  & 2 though appeared  through their counsel  but failed to   file written version  as such the Ops were set exparte and in absence of any written version we proceeded the matter exparte.

                        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.

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  are directed to refund the cost of the mobile set i.e. Rs.8719.43/- and pay compensation of Rs.2000/- for mental agony and  cost of litigation of  Rs.1500/-  to the complainant 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   27^th day  of 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                                                                                         President I/c

Documents relied upon:

By the complainant:

1. Xerox copy of  Retail Invoice.
2. Xerox copy of details of service centre

 

 

By the Opp.Party: Nil                                     

 

 

                                                                                                        President I/c