SRI G.K. RATH, PRESIDENT …         The fact of case is that, the complainant had procured a mobile phone Moto G5 Plus vide Order no. OD11042359851901000 by paying a sum of Rs.12999/- on dt.07.10.2017. After 2 months of use i.e. on 15.12.17 the mobile appears hang, automatic switch off, over heat and defective. Hence the complainant approached the OP.2 who kept the handset for 1 hour and return without any rectification. Again the complainant approached the OP.2 during the month of Aug’2018 but the service cares did not rectify the defects handover the same to the complainant. He alleged that the OP.2 being the authorized service provider did not proper try to rectify the defect and with ill intention and bad manner avoids the complainant in dilly dallying tactics which is deficiency in service. So the complainant further stated that due to such illegal act the complainant sustained mental agony, physical pain and financial hardship. So he prayed before the Forum to direct the OP.no.2 & 3 to pay the price of alleged handset and a sum of Rs.75000/- as compensation and cost of litigation.

2.         The learned counsel for OP.1 has filed counter to contend that, the present complaint is an abuse of process of law, hence is not maintainable as the complainant approached this forum by suppressing material facts. The OP.2 repaired the same through service engineer. The alleged set purchased by complainant is a well established product in the market and over a period of years the consumers are using the product without any complaint. The complainant alleged that the mobile set has major problem and manufacturing defect and the complainant is put to strict proof of the same. There is no deficiency or negligence on the part of this OP. So the complainant is not entitled for any relief as sought in the complaint, so he prayed to dismiss the case with cost.

3.         The complainant has filed copy of relevant documents along with affidavit to support his case. The counsel for OP.1 has filed written reply along with some relevant papers. The OP.2 & 3 neither appeared nor filed their counter in the case, hence they set ex parte and the forum decided to proceed the case considering the documents as available in record on merit. The complainant & counsel for OP.1 have heard the case minutely. Submissions considered.

4.         It is seen from record that the complainant has procured the said mobile on dt.07.10.2017 and the same found multiple defects after two months of its purchase i.e. within the 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 or paid its cost. In our concerned opinion, the complainant has purchased the mobile being alluring good features but he restrained to get the same. On the other hand the OP.s neither replaced the set nor paid its price on several claim of complainant. Perusing the evidences, submissions made by the complainant, we are of the view that, the set in question purchased by the complainant has some inherent defect. As such the complainant suffered mental agony with the defective set, and also inflicted financial losses for the negligence and unfair practices on part of OP.s, he prayed for compensation.

5.         In the instant case we have observed that the alleged gadget procured by the complainant from the online platform of OP.1 who has appeared and filed his reply through advocate. This forum has served notice to the OP.2 & 3 but they neither appeared nor taken any steps to participate in the entire adjudication. It seems gross negligence and against the principles of res judicata. The complainant has procured the handset from the OP.1 but the OP.3 is the manufacturer of the product & OP.2 is the service provider, hence the complainant is consumer of OP.2 & 3. So the OP.2 & 3 cannot play hide and seek game with its consumers. If the OP.2 & 3 got benefits on purchase & service of any goods, then they are collaterally answerable to redress or render service to a bonafide consumer within valid warranty periods. In the instant case the OP.2 & 3 neither tried to redress the grievance of complainant nor cared any court of law, which seems gross abuse of process of law, per se, we found arbitrary and unfair practices on the part of OP.2 & 3 which amounts to deficiency in service. As thus the complainant is harassed as alleged hence he lawfully entitled for compensatory relief. The complaint is allowed against the OP.2 & 3 with costs.  

                                                         ORDER

i.          The opposite party no.2 & 3 supra are jointly hereby directed to pay the invoice price of the mobile set i.e. Rs.12999/-in place of the alleged defective handset, inter alia, to pay Rs.7,000/-(Seven thousand) as compensation and a sum of Rs.3000/-(Three 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 complainant is at liberty to file execution after the lapse periods. Pronounced on 28th day of Nov' 2019.

                    Sd/-                                                                  Sd/-

               MEMBER                                                PRESIDENT,DCDRF,

                                                                                     NABARANGPUR