Orissa

Rayagada

CC/260/2016

T. Srikantah - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Self

11 Jan 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA

 

                                                 C.C. Case  No.260/ 2016.

P R E S E N T .

Sri Gadadhara Sahu,B.Sc.                                      Member

Smt.Padmalaya Mishra,LL.B                                  Member

Sri T.Srikanth,S/o T.Gouri Sankar Rao, aged 30 years, Resident of Kasturi Nagar,1^st Line,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 SND Warehouse,Sjhed No.CI,Door No.4/195,Redhilis Ambattur Road, Road,Puzhil SHALVILLAGE,Chennai,Tamilnadu,600062.
3. K.L.Computers, Authorised Service Centre.

                                                                                                            ………...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 Moto G(3^rd Generation)from O.p. No.2 with a  consideration of Rs.12,999/- on 04.09.2015 vide Invoice No. CHN PUZHAL 0 120 150900049473 dt.04.09.2015  with one year warranty    but  the mobile set started problems within its warranty period  and as such it was handed over  the OP 3 at Rayagada on 22.07.2016  but the defects  could not be rectified by the service centre and hence finding no other option approached this forum for relief  and prayed  to direct the O.Ps  to   refund the  cost of the mobile  Rs.12,999/-  with  cost 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 the complainant  has purchased one mobile set Moto G 3^rd Gen on 04/09/2015 for Rs.12,999/- . The role of the OP 1 is only limited to reselling the products of various manufacturers and its role comes to the end as soon  as the product ordered is delivered at the address provided by the customer. In the present case the OP 1 has delivered the product  in a sealed box to the complainant  within the time specified and hence there is no deficiency of service on the part of the OP 1. The OP 1 has  no knowledge or facility to ascertain if the alleged defects  are due to inherent manufacturing defects or arose due to customer abuse. Hence, it is the sole duty of the manufacturer  and their authorised service station  to remove the defects.  In present case the complainant should approach the manufacturer or the authaorised service centre for resolution of any such defect. The warranty with regard to after sale services was provided by the manufacturer of the product and not the OP 1.  In view of the aforesaid  it is submitted  that the OP 1  is not deficient in services  and has not caused any financial loss or ;mental agony or otherwise harassment to the complainant and hence the complainant does not have any cause of action against the OP 1 and hence not entitled to any relief from the OP 1.

                        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.12,999/- 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  11^th day April, 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  Service Centre

 

 

By the Opp.Party: Nil                                     

 

 

                                                                                                           President I/c