MR RAMSANKAR NAYAK, MEMBER … The factual matrix of case is that, the complainant, had purchased a mobile Samsung Model No E1200Y bearing it’s IMEI No.352209/08/660342/1 on dated 17.08.2016 from the OP.no.3 for Rs.1,200/-. After few days of its use the mobile automatically switched off and thereafter use of just a month the handset became dead and completely unfunctioned. Hence the complainant approached the service center at Nabarangpur for necessary repair, who could not rectify the defects but issued a service sheet to that effect dt.26.09.2016. So the complainant came to a conclusion that, the set has some manufacture problems, hence immediately he approached the OP.1 requesting to replace the alleged set with a new one to their customer care center, but who also delivered nothing except evasive advises and milk coated assurances. So the complainant alleged that the OP.1 has provided him a defective set, hence there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP.s and to which he sustained mental agony, physical pain and financial losses due to the illegal 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.20,000/- as compensation and Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation for such unfair, illegal & deceptive practices with deficiency in service on the part of OP.s.
2. The counsel for OP.1 though appeared but failed to file any counter in the case despite lapse of above 3 months of its admission. The OP.1 filed his counter in the case wherein he specified nothing except prototyped evasive denials. Hence the OP.s set ex parte as provisions envisaged in C.P.Act.1986. 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 counsel for OP.1 has heard the case at length and perused the record.
3. From the above submissions, it reveals that the complainant has procured the mobile in question on dt.17.08.2016 and the same reported dead with in its valid warranty period. It is seen that, the complainant time and again persuaded the OP.s to mend 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 manufactured defect and the OP.s failed to render any positive response to the requests of complainant within its valid warranty period. Thus the complainant suffered from mental agony with the defective set, and also inflicted financial losses and valuable times due to the negligence and inaction of OP.s, hence he craves the leave of this forum and prayed for compensation.
4. From the foregoing discussions and perusing the submissions by the complainant, it is further noticed that, the OP.s despite several complaints and also receiving notice of this forum did not step on to settle the matter of complainant. So there is nothing to reject the contentions of complainant without having counter and evidences by the OP.s, hence we feel that the actions of OP.1 is illegal, unscrupolous and against the policy of res judicata, which amounts to deficiency in service and found guilty under C.P.Act 1986, hence the complainant is lawfully entitled for relief. As thus we allow the complaint against the OP.no.1 with cost.
O R D E R
i. The opposite party no.1 supra is hereby directed to pay the price of the set Rs1,200/- (Rupees One thousand & Two hundred) in place of the alleged defective handset, inter alia, to pay Rs.3,000/-(Three thousand) as compensation and a sum of Rs.1000/-(One 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.
