MRS MEENAKHI PADHI, MEMBER … The factual matrix of case is that, the complainant, had procured a mobile handset, Intex Cloud Crystal, bearing IMEI No.911494000370851, on dt.25.04.2016 from the OP.no-3 by paying Rs.8,000/-. But soon after its use the mobile reported keypad and button problems. So the complainant approached the authorized service center i.e. the OP.2 and handover the same for repair who issued job sheet vide no.4066/592 dt.22.9.16 but the unit in question could not be mend by the OP.2. Hence the complainant further approached the customer care of OP No.1, but who delivered nothing except false assurances. Hence the complainant contends that, the OP.s provide him a sub standard and defective mobile set for a good price. So there is deficiency in service on the part of OP.s, to which the complainant sustained mental, physical pain and financial losses due to the malfeasance actions of OP.s. So he prayed before the Forum to direct the OP.s to pay the price of alleged handset and a sum of Rs.40,000/- as compensation and Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation.
2. The OP.1 & 2 being the manufacturer and service care neither appeared nor filed any counter in the case despite allowing adequate chances in its admission. Hence the OP.1 & 2 set ex parte as provisions contemplated in C.P.Act.1986. However the OP.3 retailer has filed his counter in the case, wherein he specified nothing except evasive denials. The complainant has filed copy of cash invoice of the alleged mobile, service job sheet, and an affidavit in support of his claim. The complainant and OP.3 has heard the case 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 submissions, it reveals that the complainant has procured the mobile in question on dt.25.04.2016 and the same reported defect within its valid warranty period. It is seen that, the complainant time and again approached the OP.s reporting the so called defects, but the OP.s neither rectified the set nor replaced it with a new one despite of several requests. Perusing the evidences, filed by the complainant, we are of the view that, the mobile set purchased by the complainant is substandard and the OP.s failed to render any positive response to the complainant within valid warranty period. Thus the complainant suffered mental agony with the defective set, and also inflicted financial losses and valuable times due to the negligence and malfeasance practices of OP.s, hence he craves the leave of this forum and prayed for compensation.
5. From the above discussions and perusing the submissions by the complainant, it is further noticed that, the OP.s in spite of complaint by complainant and also receiving notice of this forum are failed to take any actions to settle the matter of complainant and there is nothing doubt in the contentions of complainant without filing counter and evidences by the OP.s, hence we feel that the action of OP.1 & 2 is illegal, highhanded, arbitrary and unfair which amounts to deficiency in service and found guilty under C.P.Act 1986, hence the complainant is lawfully entitled for relief.
O R D E R
i. The opposite party no.1 & 2 supra are severally & collaterally hereby directed to pay the price of the set Rs.8,000/- (Rupees Eight thousand)on replacement of defective set inter alia, to pay Rs.5,000/-(Five thousand) as compensation and a sum of Rs.2000/-(Two thousand) towards the cost of litigation to the complainant.
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 this the 14th day of Feb' 2017.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER, DCDRF,
NABARANGPUR.
