MR LAXMI NARAYAN PADHI, PRESIDENT…              The case is that, the complainant had purchased a mobile, Samsung bearing its IMEI No. 354212/07/077980/9, on 30.10.2015 from OP.no.1 for Rs.3000/-.  That after two month the mobile reported outgoing and sound problems etc. So the complainant approached the authorized service center OP. No.2 on dt.23.12.2015 but though he tried to rectify the defects by updating software but failed to rectify the set but issued a job sheet to that effect. Finally on dt.12.05.2016 the complainant approached the OP.2 for rectify or replace the set with a new one but the OP.2 said that the set has some serious manufacture issues which could not be rectify by them. Hence the complainant approached the customer care of OP.3 and requested to repair or replace the set with a new one, but for no action. 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 cost of litigation.

2.         The counsel for OP.3 though appeared but failed to file his counter in the case. The OP.1 & 2 also did not care to file their counter in the case despite several chances given to them within its admission. Hence the OP.s set ex parte as per provisions of C.P.Act.1986. The complainant has filed cash invoice of the alleged mobile, service job sheets of OP.no.2 and warranty card of the set. The complainant & counsel for OP.3 has been heard the case and perused the record.

3.         From the above submissions, it reveals that the complainant has procured the mobile in question on dt.30.10.2015 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. Considering 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 contentions of complainant without filing submission, counter and evidences by the OP.s, hence 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.3,000/- (Three thousand) in place of defective alleged 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 this order, failing which, the total sum will bear 12% interest per annum till its realization. Pronounced on this the 30st day of Dec' 2016.

       Sd/-                             Sd/-                                                Sd/-

 MEMBER                   MEMBER                               PRESIDENT, DCDRF,

                                                                                         NABARANGPUR.