MR LAXMI NARAYAN PADHI, PRESIDENT…           The substance of case is that, the Complainant being allured with attractive advertisement of OP had ordered for a Domo Slate through online on dated 17/02/2016 on payment of Rs.3990/- which includes the freight charges through invoiced by one Bombay Mail, Mumbai Nashik, Bypass Road, Pimplas, Thane, Kalron Bhiwandi Naka vide Order No.201602171234, Supplier reference no.41917304200, invoice no. BM/15-16/07398 dt.17.02.2016. After fifteen days of its use, the product appears problems like automatic switch on/off, it does not sleep and is always found on, battery not working as per its features. As there is no service center of the Domo Slate, however the complainant could have done it repaired somewhere else but after one month it was reported the same problem as previous and on 07.04.2016 it turned off and became unfunctioned. Though the complainant ordered the product from the OP above but no where the OP displayed his present address and the product invoiced by one Bombai Mail, Bhiwandi, Maharastra. The complainant contends that, he several times trying to approach the OP to redress his matter but all his efforts are in vain thereof. The OP provide him a defective product for a valuable consideration, hence he alleged that there is unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of OP. So the Complainant inflicted mental tension, and financial losses due to the deceptive practices of OP. So he prayed before the Forum pleased to direct the OP to pay the price of alleged item and a sum of Rs.20,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation for such unfair practice and deficiency in service on the part of OP.

2.         On the other hand the OP has neither appeared on call nor filed his counter in the case despite allowing times for above 100 days of its admission, hence he set ex parte as contemplated in Sec.13(2)(b) of the C.P.Act 1986. The complainant has filed copy of some documents. The complainant heard the case at length, perused the record and the submissions are considered.

3.         The consumer protection act is a socio economic beneficial law, intended for speedy delivery of justice to the aggrieved and needy consumers and every complaint is supposed to be disposed off within a timeframe in consonance with the objects of the benevolent legislature, but inordinate delay in procurement of evidences and counter by the parties have emerged for reaching delirium to achievement of such objects.

4.         Prima facie it is found that the complainant had ordered for a Domo Slate through online on dt.17.02.2016 on payment of Rs.3990/- which includes the freight charges, invoiced by Bombay Mail, Mumbai Nashik, Bypass Road, Pimplas, Thane, Kalron Bhiwandi Naka vide its Order No.201602171234, Supplier reference no.41917304200, invoice no. BM/15-16/07398 dt.17.02.2016. But after fifteen days, the product reported problems like automatic switch on/off, it does not sleep and always found on, battery not working as per its features etc. As there is no service center of the item at his locality, the complainant could have done it repaired somewhere else but after one month it was reported the same problem as previous and on 07.04.2016 it found turned off and became totally unfunctioned. Due to non displaying the address of OP anywhere in the set or over its wrapper cover, the complainant however tried to contact the OP through internet but for no use. Considering the evidences, submissions by the complainant, we are of the view that, the set purchased by the complainant has inherent defect and the OP provide a defective item to the complainant for a good price. Thus the complainant sustained mental agony and inflicted financial losses due to the negligence and unfair practices of OP.

5.         With the above transactions we have orally verified the product in question and found defect. We are of the view that the alleged product has some inherent defects and the OP provide a defective product to the complainant. It is further noticed that, despite service of notice of this forum the OP are failed to take any initiations to settle the matter of complainant, hence we feel that the action of OP is illegal, arbitrary and unfair which amounts to deficiency in service and the OP found guilty under the provisions of the C.P.Act 1986, as thus the complainant is entitled for relief.

             So we allowed the complaint against the OP with cost.

                                                 O  R  D  E  R

i.          The opposite party above is hereby directed to pay the price of the set Rs.3990/- (Rupees Three thousand nine hundred & ninety only) inter alia, to pay Rs.10,000/-(Ten thousand) as compensation and a sum of Rs.5000/-(Five thousand) towards the cost of litigation to the complainant, for such deceptive practices, deficiency in service and willful negligence.

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 10th day of Nov' 2016.

           Sd/-                                                                          Sd/-

      MEMBER                                                        PRESIDENT, DCDRF,

                                                                                  NABARANGPUR.

Date of Preparation: 

Date of dispatch      :  

Date of received by                                                           

the A/A for Ops / Complainant  :

Initial of the dispatcher.

                        Memo No_______________                          Dtd…………………………

                        Copy to the parties concerned.a