SRI G.K. RATH, PRESIDENT … The factual matrix of case is that, the complainant had procured a mobile, make HTC Desire 626G+, bearing its IMEI No.358030063429679 on dated 13.08.2015 from the OP.no.1 for Rs.15,500/-. But within one month of its use the mobile shows automatic switch off, display not properly working, over heat during charging etc. So the complainant approached the OP.1 on dt.22.09.15 but he did not respond to his request. Hence the complainant lodged a complaint before the above OP No.2 customer care through phone requesting to replace the set but he also did nothing except advised to approach the OP.1. As per advice of OP.2 he further approached the OP.1 but he refused his request and stating that the set has some inherent defect and the OP.2 is only option to replace the set. So finding no other way the complainant repaired the set at Visakhapatnam by paying Rs.5500/- within valid warranty period. Hence the complainant harassed, inflicting great mental strain, physical pain and financial losses hence craves the leave of this forum and prayed to direct the OP.s to pay the price of alleged handset and a sum of Rs.30,000/- as compensation and Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation.
2. The complainant has filed two invoices along with his affidavit. The OP.1 & 2 neither appeared nor filed their counter in the case despite several chances hence they declared as ex parte. The counsel for complainant heard the case at length and the submissions considered.
3. From the above submissions, it reveals that the complainant has procured the mobile in question on dt.13.08.2015 and the same reported defect with in 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 the same with a new one. Perusing the evidences, submissions by the complainant, we are of the view that, the mobile set purchased by the complainant is defective product of OP.2 and he being the manufacturer/distributor failed to render any satisfactory service 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 for the negligence and unfair practices of OP.s, hence he takes shelter of this forum and prayed for appropriate compensation.
4. From the above discussions and perusing the submissions, it is noticed that, the OP.s despite receiving notice of this forum are failed to take any actions to satisfy the complainant and there is nothing to reject the contentions of complainant in absence of counter on the part of OP.s, hence we feel that the action of OP.2 is against the principles of law of the land, also appears arbitrary and unfair which amounts to deficiency in service, hence found guilty of the benevolent provisions of C.P.Act 1986, as thus the complainant is lawfully entitled for compensatory relief. As the OP.2 is carrying his business with in the local limit through dealer and retailers and the case is filed within the limitation period of 02 years, the forum has absolute jurisdiction to try the case, hence we are inclined to allow the case against OP.no.2 with costs.
ORDER
i. The opposite party no.2 supra is hereby directed to pay the cost of the mobile set Rs.15,500/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand & five hundred) in place of the alleged defective mobile set, besides, to pay Rs.7,000/-( Seven thousand) as compensation which includes 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 30th day of Dec' 2017.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
