MR LAXMI NARAYAN PADHI, PRESIDENT… The factual matrix of case is that, the Complainant had purchased a Mobile set Make Micromax bearing IMEI No. 911417751107214 on dated 29.04.2015 from OP.No-01 by paying an amount of Rs.9500/-. After use of just six months, the said set became hang, power buttons does not switch on and automatically shutdown etc. So, the complainant approached the OP No.2 and handover the set to rectify the same but the OP.2 did nothing except formatting the software and returned the same to the complainant. After some days the said set reported the same problems as it was in previous. The complainant again approached the OP.2 at Jeypore on dt.11.03.16 and handover the mobile and entered the online service vide No.95502 at about 10.52 A.M to 11.15 A.M. but the complainant could not obtained the Job sheet of the defective set. But later the complainant found that the defects arises in the mobile were not rectified by the OP.no.2, hence again the complainant requested the OP.2 to replace the defective set with a new one but the OP.2 ups his hands to render subsequent efforts and advised him to contact the company, thus the complainant contact the OP.no.3 through customer care on dt.12.03.16 at about 5.15 P.M through phone bearing no.1860 500 8286 and register his complaint vides No.MMX 51203163102978 but the customer care officials did nothing except false assurances to the complainant. Hence, the complainant contends that, the said set has some inherent manufacture defect which could not be repaired by the OP.s. The complainant has purchased the mobile set from his hard earned money being allured with attractive features but he abstained to facilitate the same, hence finding no other way the complainant purchased another mobile by paying Rs.6000/ for his necessities. Due to the illegal action of OP.s the complainant harassed which could not be evaluated in terms of money. The OP.s are neglects to render services, which amounts to deficiency in service as per law. Hence, the complainant craves the leave of this forum and seeking justice. For such illegal action of the OP.s., the Complainant inflicted great humility, financial hardship and mental tension. So he prays before the Forum to direct the OP.s to pay the price of the said handset and a sum of Rs.75,000/- as compensation and Rs.10,000/- towards cost of the litigation for such negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the OP.s.
2. On the other hand the OP.2 entered his appearance and filed counter wherein he contended that, the complainant had procured the Mobile set Micromax bearing IMEI No. 911417751107214 on dated 29.04.2015. He also admits that, the complainant had approached him on dt.11.03.16 i.e. within valid warranty period and the OP.2 at his level best repaired the set by doing software updates etc through online. As per the complaint, the complainant requested to replace the set with a new one but which is impossible on his part to replace any defective product which is not manufactured by him. So the OP.2 being an authorized service personal of OP.3, provides sufficient service to the alleged set as per provisions of company and as if there any inherent defect arouse in the set, at least the OP.no.2 is not responsible or liable for the same. He further vehemently contended that, the OP.no.2 being an educated unemployed youth preferred the mobile service center for the purpose of his family's livelihood. Further he performed his duty up to the satisfaction of complainant. Hence there is no deficiency in service on his part as alleged. The claim of compensation and cost would be prejudice if it would allow against this OP.2. Hence he prayed the honble forum to dismiss the case against the OP.no.2 with cost in the best interest of justice.
3. The counsel for OP.3 though appeared on call but failed to file any counter despite several chances given to him since admission of the case. Hence the OP.1 & 3 set ex parte as provisions contemplated in Sec.13(2)(b) of C.P.Act.1986. The complainant has filed cash invoice of the alleged mobile and warranty card of the set. The complainant & OP.2 both minutely heard the case and perused the record.
4. 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.
5. From the above submissions, it reveals that the complainant has procured the mobile set on dt.29.04.2015 and the same reported defect with in warranty period. Hence the complainant approached the OP.s for necessary repair averring the alleged defects, but the OP.s neither could mend the set nor replaced the same with a new one despite of several requests. Considering the evidences, submissions by the parties, we are of the view that, the mobile set purchased by the complainant has inherent defect and the OP.3 failed to provide service or replace with a new one to the complainant within warranty period. Thus the complainant suffered from mental agony with the defective set, and also inflicted financial losses and valuable times due to the negligence and unscrupulous practices of OP.s, hence under compulsion he craves the leave of this forum and prayed for compensation.
6. From the above discussions and perusing the submissions filed by the parties, we have carefully examined the alleged set and found defect. It is also seen from the whole transaction that, the OP.3 despite receiving notice of this forum are failed to take any initiations to settle the matter of complainant and there is nothing to unbelief the contentions of complainant without filing submission, counter and evidences by the OP.no.3. Hence we feel that the action of OP.no.3 is illegal, unscrupulous and unfair which amounts to deficiency in service and hence he found guilty under the provisions of the C.P.Act 1986, and thus the complainant is entitled for relief. As the mobile set found manufacture problems, 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 Rs.9,500/- (Nine thousand & Five hundred) 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.
ii. All the above directions shall be complied with in 30 days of this order, failing which, the total sum will carry 12% interest per annum till its realization. Pronounced on 31st day of May' 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.
