MR LAXMI NARAYAN PADHI, PRESIDENT… The factual matrix of the complaint is that, the complainant had purchased a Mobile set Make Micromax A-114 (Black) bearing IMEI/ESN No. 911343501418471/ 911343501826475 on dated 05/06/2014 from OP.No.1 by paying an amount of Rs.11,600/-. After purchase, in using within the period of valid warranty the said mobile hand set shows some major problems like Keypad do not work, audio problem, no loudspeaker & display touch screen not properly working. So, the complainant approached the OP No.2 on dt.04.11.2014 and handover the set for rectification to which the OP.2 updating the software issued a service job card to that effect and returned the same to the complainant. After few days and within the warranty period, the said set shown the same problem as it shows earlier hence the complainant again on 13.01.2015 approached the staff of OP.2 and complained about the defects seeking rectify the set but the OP.2 unless issued a job sheet did nothing with the set and returned the set to the complainant. Being aggrieved the complainant contact the manufacturer/company i.e. OP.3, to their customer center to redeem the set, but for no result. Hence the complainant came to a conclusion that the said set has some inherent defect which could not be repaired by the OP.s, and the complainant harassed which cannot be evaluated in terms of money. The OP.No.2 & 3 are neglecting to render their services, which amounts to deficiency in service under Consumer Protection Act.1986.      Due to such illegal action of the OP.s, the complainant inflicted great humility, mental discomfort and financial losses. Inter alia the complainant craves the leave of this forum and prayed before the Forum to direct the OP.s to pay the price of the said handset as mentioned above along with a cost of Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- towards cost of the litigation for such irregularities on the part of the OP.s.

2.         On the other hand, though the counsel for OP.3 is appeared but failed to file any counter to the claims in spite of chances given for three months of its admission. The OP.1 & 2 neither appeared nor file their counter in the case within the adjudication of the case. Hence the OP.s set ex parte as provisions enumerated in Sec.13(2)(b) of the C.P.Act.1986. The complainant heard the case at length and perused the records.

            The consumer protection act is a socio economic beneficial law, intended for speedy delivery of justice to the aggrieved 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.

3.         From the above submissions, it is found that the complainant has procured the mobile set on dt.05.06.2014 and the same became defect with in valid warranty period. We physically verified the alleged handset and found defects as elaborated in the complaint petition. As per the specifications of service warranty conditions, the complainant approached the OP.s for necessary repair showing the above said troubles, but the OP.s neither redeemed the set through their service center nor replaced the set with a new one. Considering the evidences, submissions by the complainant, we feel that, the mobile set purchased by the complainant has manufacturing defect and the OP.s failed to provide any service to it. Hence the complainant going through mental injury with the defective set, inflicted financial losses and valuable times, under compelling circumstances file the instant case. 

4.         From the above facts and on perusal of submissions filed by the complainant, we are of the view that the alleged set has some manufacture defect and the OP.s despite receiving notice from this forum are failed to render service to the present complainant and there is nothing to disbelieve with the contentions of complainant without submission of counter and evidences by the OP.s, hence we feel that the action of OP is illegal, arbitrary, highhanded, unscrupulous and unfair which amounts to deficiency in service and the complainant is entitled for relief.

            The complaint is allowed against the OP.no.3 with costs.

                                                                        O  R  D  E  R

i.          The opposite party no.3 supra is hereby directed to pay the price of the set i.e. Rs.11,600/- (Eleven thousand & Six hundred) inter alia to pay Rs.9,000/-(Nine thousand) as compensation and a sum of Rs.5000/-(Five 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 total sum will bear 12% interest per annum till its realization.

            Pronounced in the open forum on this the 8th day of Sept'2015.

    Sd/-                          Sd/-                                   Sd/-

MEMBER            MEMBER                   PRESIDENT, DCDRF,

                                                                        NABARANGPUR.