MR LAXMI NARAYAN PADHI, HON’BLE PRESIDENT…       The factual matrix of the complaint is that, the complainant has purchased a mobile set bearing model no. Samsung J-200GZDDINS, IMEI no.359268/07/308595/3 on dtd.10.06.2016 from the OP.no.1 by paying Rs.7,590/-. After two months of purchase and with in the valid warranty period, the said mobile set became defective like non working of touch pad, Sound and Ringing. So the complainant approached to the OP.2, who is the authorised service centre of the O.P.3  and handed over the defective set for repair on dt. 01.08.2016, vide his bill/job sheet No. 4218774799 and demanded the service job and obtained the same. After some days i.e on dt.12.08.2016 the OP.s returned the set to the complainant with necessary repair. But with in two days of its use, the set shown the same problem and became defective. The complainant again approached the OP.no.1 & 2 but neither the OP.s repaired the set nor replaced the same and they said that the mobile set has inherent defect and the same can not be repaired by them. Further the complainant approached the OP.s for several times also through letters but for no use. The alleged mobile set is manufacture defect and non providing proper service to the said set, the OP company doing unfair trade practice, for which act of this the complainant inflicted mental agony and financial losses which can not be evaluated in terms of money. So there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP.s. Hence he prayed before the forum to direct the OP.s to pay the price of the mobile set or replace it with a new one and allow compensation and cost of Rs.50,000/- for his losses.

02.       The complainant has filed copy of retail invoice of OP.no.1 bearing no.410 dt.10.06.2016 and a copy of service job sheet dt. 12.08.2016, affidavit in support of his contentions alongwith the complaint. Considered.

03.       On the other hand the OP.s neither appeared nor filed any counter in spite of several chances given to them in 3 months of its adjudication. Hence the OP.s set ex parte as contemplated in Sec.3(2)(b) of the C.P.Act.1986. The Forum heard the Complainant at length and perused the records.

04.       From the above evidences it is found that the complainant has purchased the mobile set on dt. 10.06.2016 and the same became defective with in valid warranty of One year. As per the service warranty condition the complainant hand over the defective set to the OP.no.2 for necessary repair showing switch on/ of, but neither the OP.2 could get the set repaired permanently nor  the O.P.3 replaced the set with a new one and the O.P.1 expressed that they are unable to replace the set as it is within the capacity of the O.P.3 only. The complainant filed copy of retail invoice and warranty card issued by the OP.no.1, where in condition no 10 has defined that the mobile cell has One year free warranty and a period of 06 months for battery but the OP.s sold the mobile which has manufacturing defect and the OP.s failed to provide service when it requires. Hence he has to run with unwanted troubles  with the defective set and inflicted mental agony and financial losses and filed this complaint under compulsion. 

05.       Manufacturing defects are those that occur in the manufacturing process and usually involve poor-quality materials or shoddy workmanship.   Design defects occur where the product design is inherently  defective no matter how carefully manufactured; this may be demonstrated either by showing that the product fails to satisfy ordinary consumer expectations as to what constitutes a safe product, or that the risks of the product outweigh its benefits. These things come up from the Consumer Rights, that are possessed to avoid the harm. The basic concept of the Consumer Protection is safeguarding the interest and rights of consumers. The law possesses the responsibility of the manufacturers or retailers to the consumers, legal remedy to the consumers and settlement of dispute, if arises.

06.       Between two parties who are not negligent (manufacturer and consumer), one will necessarily shoulder the costs of product defects. Proponents say it is preferable to place the economic costs on the manufacturer because it can better absorb them and pass them on to other consumers. The manufacturer thus becomes a de facto insurer against its defective products, with premiums built into the product's price.

07.       A manufacturer's warranty is what makes the manufacturer legally responsible for repairs to the consumer's  good. It is a form of guarantee. An expressed warranty is typically a written warranty. An implied warranty, unlike an expressed warranty, is not written. The law imposes these obligations on the manufacturer, the seller or both as a matter of public policy.Even unsatisfied service or repair to the product would come within the definition of deficiency in service.

08.       Those who suffer injury from defective products are unprepared to meet its consequences. The cost of an injury and the loss of time and wealth may be an overwhelming misfortune to the person injured,mentally and financially and a needless one, can be insured by the manufacturer only. Against such a loss and damage caused to the consumer in use of the product there should be general and constant protection and the manufacturer is best situated to afford such protection. Under strict liability, the manufacturer is liable if the product is defective, even if the manufacturer was not negligent in making that product defective.

09.       We have seen the mobile in the present context, immediately within 2 months of its purchase it ran to the service centre for repair, the major component i.e. the touch pad is not working, leaving the mobile worthless of use. A layman’s intellect would imagine that, the whole set is defective, and not expected  to get repaired even for a minimum warranty period. Hence, we hold that, the O.P.s has failed to provide due attention and service to the consumer and are deficient in service, but as in the foregoing paras, we have discussed, the manufacturer must take the burden of removing the defective product from the market, so also for defective service provided by its service centre, or O.P.1 the dealer, who were deficient in representing the grievance and agony of their consumer to the Manufacturer, i.e the O.P.3 under whom they work, we allow the Complaint against the O.P.1.       

                                                            O  R  D  E  R

i)         The OP.no 3 is hereby directed to replace the above said defective set with the same set with fresh warranty or pay the price of the set i.e. 7,590/-. Besides they are directed to pay Rs.5,000/-(five thousands) as compensation and a sum of Rs.1,000/-(One Thousand) towards the cost of this litigation to the complainant.

            All the above orders shall be complied with in 30 days of communication of the same, failing which, the total sum will carry 12% interest per annum till its realization.

                    Pronounced in open forum on this 30th  day of December, 2016.

            Sd/-30/12/16                      Sd/-30/12/16                                Sd/-30/12/16  

            MEMBER                          MEMBER                             PRESIDENT, DCDRF,

                                                                                                         NABARANGPUR.