Counsel for the parties:
For the complainant: -.Self..
For the O.P No.1:- Sri Santosh Kumar Mohapatra, Advocate, Rayagada.
For the O.P.No.2:- Set Exparte.
JUDGEMENT
The present disputes arises out of the complaint petition filed by the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service against afore mentioned O.Ps for non refund of price towards Nokia mobile which was not functioning within the warranty period. The brief facts of the case hassummarized here under.
That the complainant had purchased Nokia Mobile 105 2019 Single SIM blue B 07YYNLCD2 (B07YYNLCD2) from the O.P. No.1 on Dt.20.10.2020 on payment of amount a sum of Rs.1,187/- bearing Invoice No.IN-HYD3-356997 Dt.20.10.2020 through on line Amazon.in. The O.Ps. have sold the said set to the complainant providing one year warranty period . The above set found defective within the warranty period. The above mobile set not clearly sound and the talking are not clear in the mobile set. The complainant feel there is manufacturing defect in the set. The complainant complained the matter to the O.Ps. Inspite of repeated contact the O.Ps refused to rectify or replace the same. Now the above set is unused. Hence this complaint petition filed by the complainant and prays the forum direct the O.Ps to refund purchase price of the above set and such other relief as the hon’blecommission deems fit and proper for the best interest of justice.
Upon Notice, the O.P No.1 put in their appearance through their learned counsel and filed written version in which they refuting allegation made against them. The O.PNo.1 taking one and another pleas in the written version sought to dismiss the complaint as it is not maintainable under the C.P. Act, . The facts which are not specifically admitted may be treated as denial of the O.P No.1. Hence the O.P No.1 prays the forum to dismiss the case against them to meet the ends of justice.
On being noticed the O.P No.2 neither entering in to appear before the District Commission nor filed their written version inspite of more than 3 adjournments has been given to them. Complainant consequently filed his memo and prayer to set exparte of the O.Ps. Observing lapses of around 3 months 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.2. The action of the O.P No.2 is against the principles of natural justice as envisaged of the Act. Hence the O.P No.2 is 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.
We therefore constrained to proceed to dispose of the case, on its merit.
Heard from thelearned counsel for the O.P.No.1 and from the complainant. We perused the complaint petition and the document filed by the complainant.
FINDINGS.
The complainant has been heard at length & perused the records.
. From the records it reveals that, the complainant has purchased Nokia Mobile 105 2019 Single SIM blue B 07YYNLCD2 (B07YYNLCD2) from the O.P. No.1 on Dt.20.10.2020 on payment of amount a sum of Rs.1,187/- bearing Invoice No.IN-HYD3-356997 Dt.20.10.2020 through on line Amazon.in(copies of the invoice is available in the file which is marked as Annexure-I). But unfortunately after delivery with in warranty period the above set found defective and not functioning. The complainant complained the OPs for necessary repair in turn the OPs paid deaf ear.
. From the records it is seen that, the complainant has filed Xerox copy of purchase bill which is in the file marked as Annexure-I. Hence it is abundantly clear that, the complainant has repeatedly approached the OPs for the defective of above set with complaints where in the OPs not heard
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 with in warrantyperiod of purchase. As the OP No.2 deliberately lingering to file their written version or any other documents after lapses of above 08 months, and observing the present situation, and nothing adversary to the complainant 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 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 commission 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.P No.2(Manufacturer) and dismissed against O.P.No.1 (Reseller).
The O.P. No.2 (Manufacturer) is directed to refund price of Nokia mobile a sum of Rs.1,187/- besides Rs.500/- damages towards mental agony inter alia Rs.500/- for litigation expenses.
The O.P. No. 1(Reseller) is ordered to refer the matter to the O.P. No. 2(Manufacturer) for early compliance of the above order.
The entire directions shall be carried out with in30 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 7th. day of April, 2021.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
