MR LAXMI NARAYAN PADHI, PRESIDENT…         The fact of case is that, the Complainant had purchased a mobile Make Vivo, Model no.Y51L bearing it's IMEI No. 869041021830116, on dated 01.02.2016 from OP.no.1 for Rs.10,990/-. During the month of July'16 the said mobile fall down from his hand and for which the outer cover slight cracked, hence the complainant approached the OP.1 and handover the set for out warranty repair, to which the OP.1 transmit the same to the OP.no.2 at Bhubaneswar on dt.19.07.2016 and repaired the same by replacing a lower cover spare and charged Rs.867/- which the complainant paid later at the time of receiving the set from OP.1. But after use the set reported hang & over heat. So having valid warranty period, the complainant approached the OP.No.1 to mend the set, though he kept the set but did not send the same to his higher ups and after two days he suggested the complainant to send the set to service center situated at Bhubaneswar, but as the complainant having only mobile set it would quite hard on his part to send the same and purchase another set. Hence the complainant further approached the OP.1, though who tried to mend the same but he could not rectify the defect and said the complainant that the unit has some serious issues which he not be able to rectify and advised the complainant to contact the OP.2 & 3 for additional services. As per advice of OP.1, the complainant contacted the OP.3 through their toll free number i.e. 18001023388 for 04 times i.e. on dt.23.7.16 at 12.20 P.M, & 08.10 P.M,, On dt.31.7.16 at about 5.40 PM & 4.54 PM and requested to rectify or replace the set with a new one, but the customer care officials delivered nothing except milk coated words with evasive advises. Hence he inflicted great mental agony and financial losses due to the lip service of OP.s. So he prayed before the Forum to direct the OP.s to pay the price of alleged handset i.e. Rs.10,990/-, and a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs.10,000/- towards cost of litigation

2.         On the other hand the OP.s neither appeared on call nor filed any counter despite several chances given to them since admission of the case. Hence they set ex parte as per provisions contemplated in Sec.13(2)(b) of C.P.Act.1986. However the complainant has filed cash invoice of the alleged mobile, service job sheet of OP.no.2 and warranty card of the set. The complainant heard the case at length and perused the record.

3.         The consumer protection act is a socio economic beneficial law, intended for speedy delivery of justice to the aggrieved and needy consumers and every complaint is supposed to be disposed off within a timeframe in consonance with the objects of the benevolent legislature, but inordinate delay in procurement of evidences and counter by the parties have emerged for reaching delirium to achievement of such objects.

4.         From the above contentions, it is found that the complainant has procured the mobile set on dt.01.02.2016 by paying Rs.10,990/- and the same became defect with in warranty period. Hence the complainant approached the OP.s for necessary repair, but the OP.s neither repaired the set nor replaced it with a new one despite of several requests. Considering the evidences, submissions by the complainant, we are of the view that, the mobile set purchased by the complainant has inherent defect and the OP.s failed to rectify the set when it required. Thus the complainant sustained mental agony with the defective set, and also sustained financial losses due to the negligence and unfair practices of OP.s.

5.         We have orally examined the alleged hand set and found serious hang problems. It is further noticed that, despite notice of this forum, the OP.s neither appeared nor took any steps to settle the matter of complainant. It is also seen that, the OP.3 being a reputed electronic tycoon neither cares the law of the land nor regards the notice of this forum being arbitrary, highhanded, illegal manner which amounts to deficiency in service, hence he found guilty of sec. 2(1)(g) of the C.P.Act 1986, as thus the complainant is entitled for compensatory relief. Due to manufacture defect we allowed the complaint against the OP.no.3 with cost.

                                             O  R  D  E  R

i.          The opposite party no.3 C.E.O. supra is hereby directed to pay the price of the defective set Rs.10,990/- (ten thousand Nine hundred & ninety) only inter alia, to pay Rs.10,000/-(Ten thousand) as compensation and a sum of Rs.5000/-(Five thousand) towards the cost of litigation to the complainant, for such deceptive practices, deficiency in service and willful negligence.

ii.         All the above directions shall be complied with in 30 days of this order, failing which, the total sum will bear 12% interest per annum till its realization. Pronounced on 16th day of Nov' 2016.

      Sd/-                                                                       SD/-

 MEMBER                                                       PRESIDENT, DCDRF,

                                                                              NABARANGPUR.

Date of Preparation: 

Date of dispatch      :  

Date of received by                                                           

the A/A for Ops / Complainant  :

Initial of the dispatcher.

                        Memo No_______________                          Dtd…………………………

                        Copy to the parties concerned.