SRI G.K. RATH, PRESIDENT … The brief history of case is that, the complainant had procured a mobile, Samsung Model A8 bearing its IMEI No.355015/07/099131/9 on dated 06.07.2016 from the OP.no.1 for Rs.30,000/-. But on dt.27.6.17 the mobile suddenly reported defective and automatic disrupted. So the complainant approached the OP.1 being the retailer but he could not rectify the set through the OP.2 but issued a job sheet to that effect dt.30.06.2017. The complainant several times requests the OP.1 to replace the set but for no action yet been taken by OP.s. Hence the complainant harassed, inflicting great mental strain, physical pain and financial losses due to deficiency in service with arbitrary manner 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.15,000/- as compensation and Rs.3000/- towards cost of litigation for such unfair practice, arbitrary action, highhandedness and deficiency in service on the part of OP.s.
2. The counsel for OP.No.2 entered his appearance and filed his counter in the case and averred that, the case is not maintainable as the complainant approached this forum not with clean hands. The contentions of complainant are self explanatory, false & frivolous and the complainant should put the same with strict proof. The complainant is not a consumer as the instant dispute is not a consumer dispute. He further contends that there is no deficiency in service by the OP.1, so prayed to dismiss the case with cost.
3. The counsel for OP.2 & complainant heard the case at length. The complainant has filed copy of some documents along with his affidavit. The OP.1 & 3 neither appeared nor filed their counter in the case, hence they set ex parte and the forum decided to proceed the case with documents submitted by complainant as available in record on merit. Submissions considered.
4. It reveals from record that the complainant has procured the mobile in question on dt.06.07.2016 and the same reported defect with in valid warranty period of one year. 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 in question purchased by the complainant has inherent defective product of OP.2 and the OP.2 knowing all facts through its local service care failed to render any satisfactory service to the complainant. 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 under compulsion he craves the leave of this forum and prayed for compensation.
5. From the above discussions and perusing the submissions filed by the complainant, it is noticed that, the OP.s despite receiving notice of this forum are failed to take any actions to comply the grievance of complainant and there is nothing to unbelief the contentions of complainant, hence we feel that the action of OP.s is against the principles of Sale of Goods Act 1930 also arbitrary and unfair which amounts to deficiency in service, hence found guilty under the provisions of the C.P.Act 1986, as thus the complainant is lawfully entitled for compensatory relief. However as the OP.2 is the manufacturer of the said product, the complaint is allowed 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.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty thousand only) in place of the so called defective mobile set, inter alia, to pay Rs.5,000/-(Five thousand) as compensation and a sum of Rs.2500/-(Two thousand & five hundred) 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 shall carry 12% interest per annum till its realization. Pronounced on this the 28th day of Nov' 2017.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
