Date of filing:-20/04/2018.

Date of Order:-27/08/2018.

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM(COURT)

B A R G A R H

Consumer Complaint No.39 of 2018.

Debendra Ranjan Sahu, son of Late Lalit Mohan Sahu, aged about 44(forty four) years, resident of Amardeep Colony, Ward No. 10(ten), Po/Ps/Dist. Bargarh Contact No. 9437014021.                                                                                                       ..... ..... ..... Complainant.

-: V e r s u s :-

1. Competent Authority, LYF Service Center, Bargarh (Jio Service Centre) in front of Ganapati Hotel, Po/Dist. Bargarh-768028.

2. Proprietor, Ganesh Trading Co, Old N.H.6, in front of Ganapati Hotel, Po/Dist. Bargarh-768028.

..... ..... .....Opposite Parties.

Counsel for the Parties.

For the Complainant:- Himself

For the Opposite Party No.1(one) :- Exparte

For the Opposite Party No.2(two) :- Exparte

-: P R E S E N T :-

Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... P r e s i d e n t.

Ajanta Subhadarsinee ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... M e m b e r(w).

Dt.27/08/2018 -: J U D G E M E N T :-

Presented by Ajanta Subhadarsinee, Member(w):-

The Complainant has filed this case U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act-1986, against the Opposite Parties alleging deficiency in service and adopting unfair trade practice.

The brief fact of the case is that the Opposite Party No.1(one) and Opposite Party No.2(two) are the Competent Authority, LYF Service Centre, Bargarh and the Proprietor, Ganesh Trading Co., Bargarh respectively. On Dt.24/06/2016 the Complainant has purchased a LYF mobile handset bearing IMEI No. 1:911507950157844 and IMEI No.2: 911507950157851, Model: LYF wind I (LS5010) from Opposite Party No.2(two) on payment of Rs.6,800/-(Rupees six thousand eight hundred)only with due bill having 2(two) years warranty period from the date of purchase. But after some months of use, the handset showed regular problem at the time of functioning the same and some application in the handset could not open. Then the Complainant orally informed the same to Opposite Party No.2(two), who directed him to meet the Opposite Party No.1(one) i.e. the local service centre. Thereafter the Complainant has repeatedly lodged complaint before Opposite Party No.1(one) for the same. Then the Complainant move to nearest care for repair, who updated the software of the handset and the problem was solved. But after two months of updating, the problem accured again with the handset and the Complainant raised the complaint before Opposite Party No.1(one) vide reference No.8013436244 Dt.25/01/2018 and through e-mail informed the company about the problem on the same day, for which the company has issued a reference No. 14425698, in which they have informed the Complainant that they will investigate the matter, but till filing of this case the Complainant has not got any information from the company. Lastly the Complainant has served legal notices upon the Opposite Parties through registered post to solve the problem.

Thus, the Opposite Parties have committed deficiency in service towards their customer/consumer and mental harassment. Hence the Complainant has prayed for directing the Opposite Parties to replace/refund the cost of the handset to him and to pay Rs.15,000/-(Rupees fifteen thousand)only towards mental agony, harassment and professional loss and Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousand)only toward litigation expenses.

The Complainant has relied upon the following documents to establish his case.

1. The xerox copy of money receipt vide No. 169 Dt.27/06/2016, verified with the original one.

2. The copy of pleader notice with original postal receipts.

3. Net copy of track consignment reports of Postal bearing No. R0502348052IN.

4. Photocopy of customer information slip Dt.25/01/2018 (Annexure-I).

5. Photocopy of display in LYF Care Application of mobile Handset (Annexure-II) .

6. Photocopy of display in LYF Care Application of mobile Handset regarding LYF Warranty Plan (Annexure- (III) A & B).

7. Photocopy of Job Sheet No. 8013436244 Dt.25/01/2018 (Annexure-(IV) A &B).

Having gone through the case record and on hearing the Complainant the Forum was pleased to admit the case and notices were served on the Opposite Parties, SR not back from the Opposite Parties till Dt.01/08/2018, although notices were sent on Dt.24/04/2018 from the Forum. It is a long time to presume that service is sufficient on the Opposite Parties. But the Opposite Parties neither appeared nor filed their versions before the Forum. Hence, the Opposite Parties were set ex-parte on Dt.01/08/2018 and the case was posted for ex-parte hearing. Heard the matter from the Complainant and posted for ex-parte Order.

After careful scrutiny of the case record and hearing the Complainant we are of the view to decide the matter on merit on the basis of the materials available in the record. The following point of issues to be decided for proper adjudication of the case.

1. Whether the Complainant is a consumer as envisaged in the provision of Consumer Protection Act-1986 ?

2. Whether the Opposite Parties have committed any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice as alleged by the Complainant ?

3. Whether the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs as claimed for ?

Firstly, while discussing on the Issue No.1(one), on perusal of record it is invariably established by the documents like the retail invoice Dt.24/06/2016 issued by the Opposite Party No.2(two) in favour of the Complainant and from other documents available on record it is found that the Complainant has paid the consideration money to the Opposite Party No.2(two) and has purchased the LYF Mobile Set bearing IMEI No.1: 911507950157844 and IMEI No.2: 911507950157851, Model LYF Wind I (LS 5010) for his self use and as per the provision enumerated in Sec. 2(1)(d)(i) of Consumer Protection Act-1986, the Complainant becomes a consumer of Opposite Parties.

In discussing on Issue No.2(two), with regard to question as to whether the Opposite Parties are deficient in giving service or played unfair trade practice with the Complainant, in this regard, it came to our notice from the close view of entire complaint petition and documents that the mobile handset was within the warranty period when it became defect. And as per the condition of warranty policy, If the product/good shows any problem within the warranty period, the company is responsible to sort out that problem from the product/good of their company without any charges from the customer/consumer. Again as per the complaint, the Complainant was facing regular problem after two months of use of the handset and he made several complaint before the Opposite Party No.2(two), who directed him to meet Opposite Party No.1(one) and as per the direction of Opposite Party No.2(two), he lodged complaint before Opposite Party No.1(one) vide reference No.8013436244 on Dt.25/01/2018 (Annexure (IV) A & B). The Complainant also informed the company about the matter through e-mail on the same day who gave him assurance that they have investigated the matter, but till filing of the case they have not taken any steps in this regard. Legal notices has been also served on the Opposite Parties on Dt.07/02/2018 by the Complainant. But they remain silent in that regard.

In the light of the above discussion it clearly reveals that the said handset showed problem repeatedly after two months of use by the Complainant, the Opposite Parties have committed deficiency in service by not giving proper service towards their customer/consumer i.e. the Complainant in the present case. So both of the Opposite Parties are held responsible for deficiency in service caused to the Complainant, so also for unfair trade practice.

Again being noticed from the Forum the Opposite Parties neither appeared personally nor filed their versions through any counsel to counter the complaint case and to disprove the case of the Complainant.

In answering to Issue No.3(three) the Complainant is entitled for the redressal described under the provision of Consumer Protection Act-1986.

Delving deep into the matter and the discussion made in the issues basing on the evidences in the record, the Forum allowed the complaint and order as follows:-

O R D E R

The Forum hereby directed the Opposite Parties jointly and severally to replace the old LYF Mobile handset bearing IMEI No.1: 911507950157844 and IMEI No.2: 911507950157851, Model: Lyf Wind 1(LS5010) with a new handset of the same make and model to the Complainant or refund the cost of said mobile handset of Rs.6,800/-(Rupees six thousand eight hundred)only with interest @ 6% (six percent) per annum on the price value of the said handset from filing of the case till date of this order along with Rs.1,000/-(Rupees one thousand)only towards compensation for mental harassment and Rs.1,000/-(Rupees one thousand)only for litigation expenses to the Complainant within one month from the date of Order, failing which total awarded amount shall carry @10%(ten percent) interest per annum till the actual date of realization of the amount and the Complainant is directed to deposit the defective mobile handset before the Opposite Parties at the time of replacement.

The consumer complaint hereby allowed against the Opposite Parties and accordingly disposed off to-day on Dt.27/08/2018 in the open Forum.

Typed to my dictation

and corrected by me.

 (Ajanta Subhadarsinee)

               M e m b e r(w)

                                                                                    I agree,

                                                     (Sri Krishan Prasad Mishra)

                                                                           P r e s i d e n t.