IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAMBALPUR.
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.173 OF 2008
Hitesh Joshi,
Nayapara, Sambalpur, Orissa. …….. Complainant.
Vrs.
M/s Friends Communication,
Shop No.E, Dr. Kashinath Dharmashala Complex,
Municipality Chowk, Sambalpuir-1 ……… Opp.Party.
For Complainant: Self.
For O.P. : Shri S.S.Sarangi, Shri R.K.Mahana &
Shri S.K.Panigrahi, Advocats.
DATE OF ORDER : 18.04.2009
P R E S E N T :
SHRI A.K.PUROHIT, PRESIDENT
A N D
SHRI T.JAYAPURIA, MEMBER.
: O R D E R :
SHRI T.JAYAPURIA, MEMBER:- The case has been filed showing deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. The case of the complainant is that he had purchased a Reliance Mobile set bearing Model No. Classic 731, IME No.RLOHSC002405285 from Friends Communication (O.P.) vide Cash Memo No.153 dt.13.4.2008 for a consideration of Rs.1,300/-. It is alleged that the mobile set was not functioning properly due to net work problem. The problem was shorted out on 16.5.2008 by Prakash Informatics, Sambalpur vide Job Sheet No.KN08-A37-0516001. But again on 11.11.2008 the mobile set was not charged and was given to the said Prakash Informatics, Sambalpur which was returned by him with “ dead on arrival” certificate stating reason that the part was not available at the Service Centre. After getting the dead on arrival certificate from Prakash Informatics, the complainant approached the O.P., where from he purchased the mobile set to replace the same but the O.P. stated that he is not responsible to solve this problem. Hence this case with prayer to direct the O.P. to refund the cost of the mobile set amounting to Rs.1,300/- and to pay a sum of Rs.500/- towards compensation for the mental agony.
2. The O.P. put in appearance and filed version admitting the fact that the mobile set was sold by him to the complainant but the O.P.contended that the case is not maintainable in the eyes of Law for non-joinder of necessary parties. It is also contended that at the time of selling the mobile set the complainant was explained thoroughly about the operation of the mobile set and he was also explained to produce the mobile set to the Authorised Service Centre in case of any defect arises in the mobile set which is situated at Jagannah Mandir Colony, Budharaja namely Prakash Informatics. But the O.P. was not made aware of the fact that there was net work problem and charging problem in the mobile set and it was produced before Prakash Informatics which was returned with dead on arrival certificate. The complainant was also made aware of the fact that he should approach the distributor of the company namely Acharya Distributor at Sambalpur located in front of L.I.C. building, Budharaja to comply dead on arrival certificate but the complainant in stead of approaching the distributor of the company, has made allegations against him wrongly for relief on his grievance and repair or replacement of the mobile set.
3. The O.P. is very kind to all his customers and always tries to help in case of any defect in the mobile set and if anyone approaches him, he suggests the mode of repair etc but in the present case the complainant has not made party to the Authorised Service Centre and the Distributor of the Company, so the case suffers from non-joinder of necessary party. Hence the case is liable to be dismissed.
4. Heard the parties and perused the documents and materials available on record. The complainant put in appearance in person and the O.P. through his Advocate. On perusal of the record it is seen from the cash memo issued by the O.P. that the mobile set has been sold for a consideration of Rs.1,300/- on 13.4.2008. It is also seen from the Job sheet issued by Prakash Informatics that the mobile set has been produced before him and dead on arrival certificate has also been issued by him, which indicates that the mobile set has become defective. Generally the customer has knowledge and direct relationship with the seller but he has a little knowledge about the Authorised Service Centre or the Distributor of the Company etc. The customer generally keeps direct relationship with the seller only. In the instant case, the complainant has filed this case personally and it is not expected that each and every customer has got knowledge about the legal procedure and practice in Law, which is seen in this case. The complainant is ignorant about the Authorised Service Centre and the Distributor of the Company etc. to be contacted if any defect is found in the mobile set and made party in case of filing the case. However, the cost of the mobile set is not at higher side.
The O.P. can replace the defective mobile set of the complainant if it is not at all repairable and subsequently he may take up the matter with the distributor or the manufacturing company for reimbursement. Hence the O.P. is required to take pain since he is kind enough and cooperative to all customers as averred in his written version. Hence order :
The case is allowed. The O.P.is directed to replace the defective
mobile set of the complainant with a new one of the same model
and description with fresh warranty within one month from the
date of receipt of this order, however, he may subsequently take
up the matter with the manufacturing company for reimbursement.
In the facts and circumstances of the case no order is passed as to
compensation or costs.
The case is disposed of accordingly.
T.JAYAPURIA
MEMBER.
SHRI A.K.PUROHIT, PRESIDENT. I agree.
Dictated and corrected by me.
MEMBER.
Tags: Friends Communication