SRI GOPAL KRISHNA RATH, HON’BLE PRESIDENT …                      The factual matrix of case is that, the above complainant had purchased a mobile, make Micromax A311 bearing its IMEI No.911407303644913 on dated 31/10/2015 from OP.no.1 by paying an amount of Rs.8278/- through online. After ten months within valid warranty period, the mobile appears troubles like automatic switch on/off & battery overheating etc. So the complainant approached the authorized service center OP.no.2 for its necessary repair, though he tried to repair the set but later the complainant found that the set persist the same problems as it was in previous. Hence the complainant further approached the service center to which he said that the set has some manufacture defect and only the company can repair or replace the same. So finding no other way the complainant approached the manufacturer i.e. OP.no.3 through the OP.2 but for no result thereof. The complainant purchased the set by paying a good price, but at the time of trouble the OP.s refrained from suitable service. So the complainant 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.         On the other hand, the OP.2 entered his appearance and filed counter, wherein he averred that being an authorized service care he rendered good service to the complainant which reflects on the face of job sheet where the complainant put his signature with satisfaction. He further contended that the complainant vehemently demanded a new set which is not within purview of this OP, hence he instructed him to contact the OP.3. So he prayed that as there is no deficiency in service on his part, the case is liable to dismiss against the OP.2.

The complainant has filed invoice of the alleged mobile set, service job sheet etc. The OP.1 & 3 neither appeared nor filed their counter in the case, hence they set ex parte as per provisions of C.P.Act 1986. Heard from the OP.2 & complainant and perused the records.

3.         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.

4.         From the above submissions, it is found that the complainant has procured the mobile set on dt.31.10.2015 by paying an amount of Rs.8278/- and the same appears defect in warranty period of one year. As per terms & conditions of warranty the complainant approached the OP.s for necessary repair, but the OP.s neither could mend the same nor replaced it with a new one despite of several requests. Considering the evidences, written submissions by the complainant, we are of the view that, the mobile set purchased by the complainant has inherent defect and the OP.s failed to provide service to the complainant within warranty period. Thus the complainant sustained mental agony with the defective set, and also inflicted financial losses and valuable times due to the negligence and unfair practices of OP.s, hence he craves the leave of this forum and prayed for compensation.

5.         Based on the evidence adduced and the pleading put forth, it is noticed that, despite service of notice of this forum the OP.s are failed to take any actions to settle the matter of complainant, hence we feel that the action of OP.s is illegal and unfair which amounts to deficiency in service and hence found guilty under the provisions of the C.P.Act 1986, as thus the complainant is entitled for relief. However observing manufacture defect in the device we allowed the complaint against the OP.no.3 with cost.

ORDER

i.          The opposite party no.3 supra is hereby directed to pay the price of the mobile set in question of Rs.8278/- (Rupees Eight thousand two hundred & Seventy eight only) in place of the defective alleged mobile set, besides to pay Rs.9,000/-(Five Thousand only) as compensation and Rs4,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) as cost of litigation to the complainant.

ii.         The above awards shall be complied with in 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which, the total award sum will carry 12% interest per annum till its realization. Order pronounced in the open forum on this the 18th day of Oct' 2017.

   sd/-                                                          sd/-                                           sd/-

MEMBER                                          MEMBER                            PRESIDENT,DCDRF,

(Sri R.S.Nayak)                                 (Smt M.Padhi)                      (Sri G.K.Rath)

            Memo No____473__DF         Dt…01/11/2017…

            Copy to the parties concerned.

                                                                                            PRESIDENT, DCDRF,

                                                                                              NABARANGPUR