SRI G.K. RATH, PRESIDENT … The factual matrix of case is that, the complainant has procured a Mobile set bearing its IMEI No.354127061592252 on dated 18.12.2015 from OP.1 paying Rs.12600/-. Later use of just three months the mobile found defect like hang, automatic switch off, overheat etc. So the complainant approached the authorized service center OP. No.2 on dt.06.05.2016 but though he tried to rectify the defects and returned the set on dt.23.5.16 but failed to rectify the defect and issued a job sheet to that effect. So the complainant approached the OP.s for several times and requested to repair or replace the set with a new one, but for no action. Hence he inflicted mental tension, and financial losses. So he prayed before the Forum to direct the OP.s to pay the price of alleged handset and a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation.
2. The complainant has filed copy of relevant documents in support of his claim along with affidavit. On the other hand it is seen that the OP.s neither appeared before the forum nor file any counter in spite of several chances allowed in it’s admission. Hence they set ex parte as per Sec.13(2)(b)(i) (ii) of the C.P.Act.1986, so the forum decided to proceed the matter as evidences available in record on merit. Heard from the counsel for complainant at length, perused the record and submissions considered.
3. It reveals from the above submissions that, being allure with attractive features in the set, the complainant has procured the same on dt.18.12.2015 from OP.1 paying an amount of Rs.12,600/-. But after three months of it purchase the devise appears defect, hence the complainant approached the OP.s for repair or replaces the same with a new one, but the OP.s neither rectified the set nor paid its price. Considering the evidences, submissions by the complainant, we are of the view that, the set in question is a defective manufacture product and the OP.s provides the set to the complainant with a good price but at the time of repair the OP.s did not turned to his request. Thus the complainant sustained mental agony, loss of money and also inflicted valuable times due to the negligence, arbitrary and unfair practices of OP.s hence prayed for compensation.
4. It is further seen that, the OP.s carrying their business within the local limit through their dealers/retailers and gains profit, hence the forum has statutory obligations to entertain the case in the interest of justice.
5. It is also noticed that, despite service of notice of this forum the OP.s are failed to take any steps to settle the matter of complainant and there is nothing to disbelief the contentions of complainant without appearance, filing counter and evidences by the OP.s, hence we feel that the action of OP.s is highhanded and unfair which amounts to deficiency in service and hence they found guilty under the provisions of C.P.Act 1986.
6. In this case the complainant has purchased the mobile set for his own & personal use and not for commercial purpose so he is a genuine consumer under the OP.s. The complainant has also filed this complaint within the local jurisdiction and lawful limitation period, hence the complaint is maintainable in the eyes of law, and as the complainant is sustained losses in every corner hence is entitled for relief. However observing inherent defect in the mobile set we allow the complaint against the OP.No.3 with cost.
ORDER
i. The opposite party no.3 supra is hereby directed to pay the cost of the mobile set Rs.12,600/- (Rupees Twelve thousand & Six hundred) in place of alleged defective mobile set, besides, to pay Rs.5,000/-(Five thousand) as compensation & Rs.2000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) as 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 29th day of Dec' 2017.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Memo No________________DF Dt…………………………
PRESIDENT,DCDRF,
NABARANGPUR
