Presented by Miss R.Pattnayak, President.

This is a complaint filed by the Complainant U/S-12 of the Consumer Protection Act-1986, against the Opposite Parties alleging deficiency in service.

In brief, the case of the Complainant is that, on dated 18/05/2010, he purchased a L.G KB 660 Model double SIM touch screen Mobile set bearing IMEI Nos.359844021383680 and 359845021380683 from Opposite Party No.3(three) namely Bibhuti Bhusan Dash, M/S. Roopsingar, Thana Chowk, Main Road, Bargarh who is the authorized retailer of L.G Brand Mobile product for Rs.9,800/-(Rupees nine thousand eight hundred)only for his personal use. The serial No. of the set is 001CQCH138368.

The Opposite Party No.1 (one) is the importer and product controller of L.G Brand Mobile Set. The Opposite Party No.2(two) is the person to look after the consumer complaint and provide consumer service to satisfy consumers of L.G products being the local authorized service provider.

At the time of purchase of the said Mobile Set, the cash memo bearing No.4112, Dt.18/05/2010 was issued by Opposite Party No.3(three) to the Complainant showing purchase of the Mobile Set.

According to the Complainant, after using the product for some months he found that, the set is hanging from time to time and is not functioning properly. The set is also unable to hold charge within it and the touch pad of the set is not functioning. So the Complainant approached the Opposite Party No.3 (three) in the month of August-2010 and requested to solve the problem, but Opposite Party No.3 (three) instead of solving the problem directed him to approach before the Opposite Party No.2 (two). The Opposite Party No.2 (two) without providing the requisite service to him deferred the matter on some different pleas and finally denied to provide any service which is illegal, because the Mobile is being defective during its warranty period. This is the violation of warranty rule by the concerned service provider.

It has been pleaded by the Complainant that, despite his repeated requests to Opposite Party No.2 (two) and 3( three), the Opposite Parties failed to provide any service, which amounts to deficiency in service.

Again, it has been also pleaded by the Complainant, that despite his request to Opposite Party No.2 (two) and 3( three), to provide him a stand by set as an alternative arrangement and to seek permission from the Opposite Party No.1 (one) to solve his problem, the Opposite Party No.1 (one) pay no heed. Finding no other way, the Complainant had caused service of pleaders notice on the Opposite Parties on Dt.29/09/2010 which were received by the Opposite Parties, but the Opposite Parties did not give any reply, otherwise remained silent. This act of the Opposite Parties amounts to deficiency in service. The Opposite Parties are violating the terms and conditions of the warranty, issued by the company. On the other hand, the Complainant suffered loss. Mental agony and physical harassment without getting any benefit or utility by this illegal act of the Opposite Parties.

Being aggrieved, the present complaint was filed by the Complainant with a prayer to provide him with a new Mobile Set of worth Rs.9,800/-(Rupees nine thousand eight hundred)only replacing the defective set and to give direction to the Opposite Party to pay compensation of Rs.15,000/-(Rupees fifteen thousand)only and Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousand)only towards litigation expenses for the negligence and deficiency in rendering service.

In support of the case, the Complainant has filed certain documents which are annexed in the case Record.

Notices were duly served on the Opposite Parties. SR back from them and the case was posted for appearance and version by the Opposite Parties, but no body were appeared on their behalf either in person or though counsel except Opposite Party No.1 (one). Hence on dated 20/10/2011, Opposite Party No.2 (two) and 3 (three) were set ex-parte. Opposite Party No.1 (one) appeared on Dt. 04/08/2011 and submitted his version on Dt.20/10/2011.

In his version as well as in the oral argument, Opposite Party No.1(one) while denying all the allegation raised by the Complainant, submitted that the Complainant is not entitled to any claim and the complaint petition is liable to be dismissed. The Opposite Party No.1 (one) while submitting that the Complainant never lodged any complaint either before the authorized service center or through toll free number, have admitted that the parties are bound by the terms and conditions of the warranty card. He further submitted that the Opposite Party can only be held liable under the consumer protection Act if it is proved by the Complainant that there is any manufacturing defect in goods provided to him. The Opposite Party No.1 (one) has also submitted, as there is no negligence in rendering any service to the Complainant, the case is liable to be dismissed with cost.

Points to decide:-

(i) Whether any deficiency of service occurred?

(ii) To what compensation, the Complainant is entitled for?

On careful consideration of the complaint petition, version of Opposite Party No.1 (one) and after hearing both the parties, we found that purchase of the Mobile Phone from Opposite Party No.3 (three) is proved through the documentary evidence annexed in the case record. We also found that, the defect in the Mobile set started defect after just 3 months of its purchase which is definitely within the period of warranty. The Opposite Party No.2 (two) and No.3 (three) were also neither contested in this case to counter that, there is no manufacturing defect in the said Mobile. They have not filed their version and also failed to adduce any evidence before the forum that there is no manufacturing defect in the said phone.

The point whether the Complainant approached the Opposite Party No.2 (two) and No.3 (three) and got denied the services of Opposite Party No.2 (two) and No.3 (three) is under question, as the Complainant was not able to prove it through any document or any kind of evidence but in absence of the Opposite Party No.2 (two) and No.3 (three) in proceeding and the related neglect shown brings weight to the grievance of the Complainant and forum views that if the Opposite Party No.2 (two) and No.3 (three) are not giving due regards to the court proceeding, what kind of attention they would be giving to common man. Thus, the version of the Complainant is accepted.

Opposite Party No.1 (one) says that he is not responsible for the deficiency of service, because all the products of L.G.Electronics India Limited are offered for sale after satisfying that the mobile sets are OK and in this case also No warranty card produced by the Complainant.

But even though, the forum feels that, when a mobile is purchased and the mobile has fundamental latent defects which could not be found out in the usual course of inspection, the express warranty absence of the warranty period should not limit the buyer's right for damages for the latent manufacturing defect. Hence, the manufacturer, namely the Opposite Party No.1(one) is also liable to make good the said loss.

It is also seen that even after sending of pleader's notice, no party have replied who are well responsible for the after sale service, which clearly shows that the Opposite Parties have no care to the Complainant. Again the pleader notice to Opposite Parties on Dt. 29/09/2010 are within one year of the purchase of the mobile phone.

So, on the whole, it is well understood that a purchase occurred with some hope and aspirations which are not fulfilled and the purchaser suffered from the transaction to a considerable high amount frustrating the whole purpose of transaction. Due to these act and attitude of the Opposite Parties, the Complainant has not only suffered mentally but also got financial loss and physically harassment and the purpose of purchasing of mobile set by him also get frustrated.

Hence gross negligence and deficiency of service lies with the Opposite Parties and they are liable jointly and severally to compensate the Complainant from what he suffered. In these circumstance the complaint petition is allowed.

-: O R D E R :-

The Opposite Parties are directed jointly and severally to compensate the Complainant either a New Mobile set with similar description or refund the original purchase price of the mobile set i.e Rs.9,800/-(Rupees nine thousand eight hundred)only to the complainant and Rs.2,000/-(Rupees two thousand)only as compensation towards mental agony and litigation expenses within 2(two) months from the date of this order, failing which the total awarded amount shall carry @ 18%(eighteen percent) interest per annum till the final realization of amount. The Complainant is further directed to return the defective L.G Mobile Phone to the Opposite Party No.3 (three) at the time of receiving the new set or monetary compensation.

Accordingly case is disposed.

Typed to my dictation

and corrected by me.

          I agree,                                                  I agree, 

(Miss. Rajlaxmi Pattanaik)                  (Smt. Anjali Behera)

         P r e s i d e n t.                                    Member.