MR LAXMI NARAYAN PADHI, PRESIDENT…           The fact of case is that, the Complainant had purchased a mobile, Lenovo through online bearing its IMEI No.867970025606498// 867970025606506 on dated 10.08.2015 from OP.no.1 by paying an amount of Rs.10,000/- and the same was delivered vide invoice No.0120150800115966 on dt.12.08.2015 of OP.2. After purchase, the mobile reported hang, display problem, automatic switch off & Battery overheating etc. So the complainant approached the authorized service center at Bhubaneswar and who render service but failed to rectify the defects reported. Later the same problem arouse with the set as it was in previous hence the Complainant approached the OP.s for many a times but for no response. Hence he inflicted highly mental tension, physical pain and financial hardship due to the sub standard set as well as inaction and deficiency service by the OP.s. So he prayed before the forum to direct the OP.s to pay the cost of alleged handset and a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs.20,000/- as cost of litigation for such unfair practice and deficiency in service on the part of OP.s.

2.         On the other hand the counsels for OP.1 & 2 though entered their appearance but failed to file any counter despite several chances given in above 03 months of its admission. Hence the OP.1 & 2 set ex parte as per provisions contemplated in Sec.13(2)(b) of C.P.Act.1986. The counsel for OP.3 filed his counter, affidavit and copy of relevant annexure. Considered. The complainant has filed cash invoice of the alleged mobile, service job sheet of OP.3 along with his affidavit. The complainant & counsels for OP.s has been heard the case minutely.

3.         As 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.12.08.2015 by paying an amount of Rs.10,000/- and the same became defect with in valid warranty period. Hence the complainant approached the authorized service centre of OP.no.3 situated at Bhubaneswar for necessary repair, and the service center well repaired the set up to the satisfaction of complainant. But later the unit shows the same defects as it was in previous hence the complainant time again complained the OP.s for rectify or replace the alleged set with a new one but all his efforts were in futile. Considering the evidences, submissions by both the parties, we are of the view that, the mobile set purchased by the complainant has inherent defect, and the OP.s failed to rectify or replace the set prior to legal persuasions. Thus the complainant gone through mental agony with the defective set, sustained financial losses and valuable times due to the negligence and unfair practices of OP.s.

5.         Further, we have perused the record and found that the OP.3 delivered their efforts up to the satisfaction of complainant which reflects in the face of job sheet but however the set arouse the same problems at later stage. It is further noticed that, despite service of notice of this forum the OP.1 & 2 neither cared to file their counter nor took any initiations to settle the matter of complainant. Hence we feel that the action of OP.1 & 2 is arbitrary, highhanded, illegal which amounts to deficiency in service, hence found guilty under the provisions of sec. 2(1)(g) of the C.P.Act, as thus the complainant is entitled for compensatory relief. So we allowed the complaint against both the OP.s with cost.

                                                   O  R  D  E  R

i.          The opposite party no.1 & 2 severally & collaterally are hereby directed to supply a same new hand set to the complainant with fresh warranty in place of the defective alleged set, inter alia, to pay Rs.5,000/-(five thousand) as compensation and a sum of Rs.2,000/-(Two 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 28th day of Sept' 2016.

                           Sd/-                                                                Sd/-

                     MEMBER                                               PRESIDENT, DCDRF,

                                                                                          NABARANGPUR.