MR LAXMI NARAYAN PADHI, PRESIDENT… The case is that, the complainant had purchased a mobile, Samsung G 531F, bearing its IMEI No. 352302/07/034241/9, on dt.08.08.2015 from OP.no.1 for Rs.11,490/-. That after two month the mobile reported hang & display problems etc. So the complainant approached the authorized service center OP. No.2 on dt.24.10.2015 but though he kept the set for some days to rectify the defects but failed to rectify the set and returned the same on 28.09.15 and issued a job sheet to that effect. But later the set appears the same problems as it was in previous. Hence on dt.10.11.2015 the complainant approached the OP.3 for rectify or replace the set with a new one but the OP.3 also said that the set has some serious issues which could not be rectify by them. 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 OP.s neither appeared nor files their counter in the case despite several chances allowed to them in its admission. Hence they 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 & 3. The complainant has been heard the case minutely and perused the record.
3. From the above submissions, it reveals that the complainant has procured the mobile in question on dt.08.08.2015 and the same became defect with in valid warranty period. 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 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 appearance, 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.4 with costs.
O R D E R
i. The opposite party no.4 is hereby directed to pay the price of the set Rs.11,490/- (Eleven thousand four hundred & Ninety only) in place of defective alleged set, inter alia, to pay Rs.3,000/-(Three thousand) as compensation and a sum of Rs.2000/-(Two 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 complainant is at liberty to proceed through execution. Pronounced on 30dth day of Dec' 2016.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER 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.
