MR LAXMI NARAYAN PADHI, PRESIDENT…                        The case is that, the complainant had purchased a mobile, Lava bearing its IMEI No.1. 911438351705264 & 91143851705272, on 18.08.2015 from OP.no.1 for Rs.7800/-. That after purchase of nine month the mobile reported hang, battery overheating etc. So the complainant approached the authorized service center OP. No.2 on dt.25.05.2016 & on 16.7.16 but though he tried to rectify the defects by updating software but failed to rectify the set and issued a job sheet to that effect. The complainant again approached the OP.s for rectify or replace the set with a new one but neither of the OP.s taken no action and said that the set has some serious manufacture issues which could not be rectify by them. 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 OP.1 & 3 has filed their counter and contended nothing except some evasive and prototyped denials. The OP.2 neither appeared nor filed his counter in the case despite several chances given to him within its admission. Hence he set ex parte as per provisions of C.P.Act.1986. The complainant has filed service job sheet of OP.no.2. The complainant has been heard the case in absence of OP.s and perused the record.

3.         From the above submissions, it reveals that the complainant has procured the mobile in question on dt.18.08.2015 and the same became defect with in valid warranty. It is seen that, the complainant several times approached the OP.s for repair, but the OP.s neither rectified the set nor replaced the same with a new one despite of several persuasions. Observing the evidences, submissions by the complainant, we are of the view that, the alleged mobile set found defect within its valid warranty but the OP.s failed to render service to the complainant when he requires. Thus the complainant suffered from mental agony with the defective set, and also inflicted financial losses due to the negligence and unfair practices of OP.s.

4.         From the above discussions and perusing the submissions filed by the complainant, it is found that, the OP.s despite receiving notice of this forum are failed to take any steps to settle the matter of complainant and there is nothing to reject the claim of complainant. On the above scenario we feel that the action of OP is illegal, highhanded which amounts to deficiency in service. As thus the complaint is allowed against the OP.no.3 with costs.

                                                 O  R  D  E  R

i.          The opposite party no.3 is hereby directed to pay the price of the set Rs.7800/- (Seven thousand & eight hundred) in place of the alleged defective set, inter alia, to pay Rs.2,000/-(Two thousand) as compensation and a sum of Rs.1000/-(One thousand) towards the cost of litigation to the complainant.

ii.         All the above directions shall be complied with in 30 days of receipt of this order, failing which, the total sum will bear 12% interest per annum till its realization. Pronounced on this the 30th day of Dec' 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.

                                                                                                PRESIDENT, DCDRF,

                                                                                                    NABARANGPUR.