Orissa

Rayagada

CC/71/2020

Sri Ch. SriKant - Complainant(s)

Versus

Konde Products and Services Pvt Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Self

11 Nov 2021

ORDER

                     DISTRICT   CONSUMER DISPUTES  REDRESSAL COMMISSION, RAYAGADA,

AT:  KASTURI NAGAR, Ist.  LANE,   L.I.C. OFFICE     BACK,PO/DIST: RAYAGADA, STATE:  ODISHA, PIN NO.765001,.E-mail- dcdrfrgda@gmail.com

…

 

C.C.CASE  NO.71/2020                                      Date.  11 .11 2021.

 

P R E S E N T .

Sri   Gopal   Krishna   Rath,                                               President.

Smt.Padmalaya  Mishra,.                                                 Member

 

 

Sri Ch. Srikant, C/O: K.B.K.Murty, New Colony, Kapilash Road,   Po/Dist:Rayagada   (Odisha).Cell No..      9438524442.                                                                                                             …. Complainant.

Versus.

1.The Manager,  Konde Products & Services Pvt. Ltd., Instakart Services Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 230,231, Aarna Product, Old Delhi Road, Simla Mouza, Dist:Hoogly, Kolkata(West Bengal).

2.The Manager,  Customer Care, Realme Mobile  telecommunication Pvt. Ltd.,  3^rd.  floor tower  -B, Building No.8, DLF,  Cybercity Gurugaom, Pin No. 122002, Haryana.

3. The Manager, Manufacturer of the above mobile, Realme mobile Telecom Pvt. Ltd.   C/O: Oppo mobiles India  Pvt. Ltd.,  Plot No. 1 Udyog Bihar, Greator Noida, Gautam  Budha Nagar, Utterpradesh, 201306.

                                    … Opposite parties.

For    the complainant :- Self.

For the O. Ps 1 & 3   :- Set exparte.

For the  O.P. No.2:- Sri  Santosh  Kumar  Mishra, Advocate, Navarangapur.

JUDGEMENT

The  crux of the case is that  the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps    for  non rectification of  mobile set  which was found defective within warranty period and not removed the defects  for which  the complainant  sought for redressal of the grievances raised by the complainant.  The brief  facts  of the case are summarized here under.

On being noticed  the O.Ps 1 & 3  neither entering in to appear before the District Commission  nor filed their  written version inspite of more than  8 adjournments has been given  to them. Complainant consequently filed his memo and prayer to set exparte of the O.Ps.  Observing lapses of around 9 (Nine) 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  from the complainant set the case  exparte against the O.Ps 1 & 3 . The action of the O.Ps  1 & 3  are against the principles of  natural justice as envisaged  in C.P. Act. Hence the O.Ps. 1 & 3   were  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 counsel  in which  they refuting allegation made against them.  The 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,. 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 District Commission  to dismiss the case against  them  to meet the ends of justice.

Heard  the  case  and  arguments from the learned counsel for the O.Ps  No.2   and from the complainant.    Perused the record, documents, written version  filed by the parties. 

This Commission  examined the entire material on record  and given  a thoughtful consideration  to the  arguments  advanced  before us by  the  parties touching the points both on the facts  as well as on  law.

                                                        FINDINGS.

There  is no dispute that   the complainant had purchased  a   Realme XT  pearl blue 64  GB  bearing  IMEI No. 866121046909575  vide  invoice  Dt.30.10.2019   on  payment  of amount a sum of Rs.14,499/-  through on line from the  O.P. No.1. The O.Ps. had   sold  the  said set to the complainant providing  one year warranty period. (copies  of the       bill    is in the file which is marked as Annexure-I ).

After  using  some  months i.e with in the warranty period  the complainant  has  shown  the defects are continued i.e. Net work problem, Hang, Camera, Data missing, Battery not back up.  . Hence   the complainant  approached the  service centre    for its rectification.  But the   Service centre had not rectified the  same  defective  within the warranty period.

            The main grievances of the complainant is that due to non  rectification of the  above  set perfectly  within warranty period  he wants  replace or   refund  of purchase  price of the above set. Hence this C.C. case.

            The  O.P. No.2  in their written version contended that  the complainants allegations regarding  deficiency of service  also lack any basis and are entirely  untenable. It is submitted that the complainant has not submitted any evidence  such as a job sheet in connection with any alleged  visits to the authorised service centre  of the O.P. No.3. Additionally, the  complainant has not provided any evidence regarding  manufacturing defects  in the product. It is therefore clearly established that the complainant has provided false information in the complaint to mislead the  commission  and to unnecessarily harass the  O.P. No.2 by filing this false complaint. On this ground alone, the complaint should be dismissed in limine.

The O.Ps are   taking one and another pleas in the written version and had mentioned  a lot of citations of the Apex  courts and   sought to dismiss the complaint as it is not maintainable  under the C.P. Act.

  Admittedly the  purchase of the mobile hand set of  M.I. Company  by the complainant is not denied.  The O.Ps have given an undertaking that they are  ready to  give the free  service as per the conditions of the warranty given to the said  set.  The complainant submitted that  as  per the  warranty condition  he approached  from pillar to post but the complainant  not get any  fruitful  result  till  date from any of  the  O.Ps.

                 It is well settled principle of law that  no consumer will make any such complaint if there is no such deficiency. Hence the action of the O.Ps for not giving the required service  to the complainant is a deficiency in service  on the part of the O.Ps.

                  Further it is observed that the complainant is deprived of enjoyment of the mobile set for such a long time and caused mental torture and harassment to the complainant.  Further more the  mobile is highly essential  for the  complainant  towards  his profession.

Now we have to see whether there was any  negligence  on the part of the O.Ps in treating the complainant as alleged ?

We  perused the  documents filed by the complainant  and it  proves that the complainant has purchased a mobile set  from the  O.P.   and after its purchase when the mobile set was found defective the  O.P failed to rectify the defect. The  complainant has approached the service centre  from time to time but  the defects were not removed by the service centre.   At the time of selling their products the O.Ps should ensure that they would provide after sale service to the customer but in this case  the O.Ps sold their produce and failed to give after sale service which is a clear deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. At this stage we hold that  if the mobile set  require service immediately after its purchase then it can be presumed that it is manufacturing  defective   and  if a defective mobile is supplied, the consumer  is entitled to get refund of the price of the product/article  or to replace a new one.  In the instant case as it appears that the mobile set which was purchased by the complainant had developed defects after  using some months   and the O.Ps were unable to restore its normal functioning during the warranty period.

      In the instant case as it appears  that the above set which was purchased  by the complainant  had developed defects and the O.Ps engineers are   repeatedly attempts  to restore  its regular functioning  but  not made perfect running condition    of the above set till  date.

      

Hence to meet the ends of justice, the following order is passed.

                                                                       

                                                                        ORDER.

            In the resultant the complaint petition  stands allowed in part on contest against the O.Ps. 

             

The O.P No.  1 & 3  are ordered to replace the  Realme XT  pearl blue 64  GB  bearing  IMEI No. 866121046909575 )purchased by the complainant   with a new defect free set  with  higher end model Realme   8 Pro   Infinite   black without charging any extra price or to refund  the price of the  mobile set Rs. 14,499.00.  Parties  are left to bear  their own cost.

 

The O.P. No.2  is directed to  refer the matter to the O.Ps 1 & 3 for early compliance of the   above  order.

 

                       

            The O.P No.  1 &  3  are ordered to comply the above direction within 45 days  from the date of receipt of this order.     Service the copies of the order to the parties.

 

Dictated  and  corrected  by  me.

Pronounced on this               11^t.      Day    of        November,   2021.

 

            Member                                                                                            President