MR LAXMI NARAYAN PADHI, PRESIDENT…              The fact of case is that, the complainant procured a mobile, Samsung Model J-5 bearing its IMEI No. 352672/07/718105/5, on 25.01.2016 from OP.no.1 for Rs.12,300/-. That after few months of its use the mobile reported hang, overheating etc. So the complainant approached the authorized service center OP No.2 for several times but though who tried to rectify the defects by updating software but failed to repair the set. Finally on dt.02.07.2016 the complainant approached the OP.2 for rectify or replace the set with a new one but who also tried to mend and issued a job sheet thereof and the service engineers said that the set has some serious manufacture issues which could not be rectify by them and advised the complainant to contact the OP.3. As per advice of OP.2, the complainant approached the customer care of OP.3 through their toll free number i.e. 180030008282 on dt.04.07.16 at 1.00 P.M. and requested to repair or replace the set with a new one, but the customer care officials did nothing except evasive assurances and issued a Ref.No.3706709204 to that effect. But later the complainant time and again approached the OP.s over phone to redress the matter but all the requests were in vain thereof. The complainant highly depends on his mobile but he restrained from its use due to the inaction of OP.s. Hence he inflicted from mental tension, physical injury and financial hardship. So he prayed before the Forum to direct the OP.s to pay the price of alleged handset and a sum of Rs.20,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation for such unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of OP.s.

3.         The counsel for OP.3 though appeared but failed to file his counter in the case. The OP.2 also did not care to file his counter in the case despite several chances given to him within its admission. Hence the OP.2 & 3 set ex parte as per provisions of C.P.Act.1986. The OP.1 has filed his counter. The complainant has filed cash invoice of the alleged mobile, service job sheet of OP.no.2 and warranty card of the set. The complainant & counsel for OP.3 has been 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 in question on dt.25.01.2016 and the same became defect with in valid warranty. It is seen that, the complainant time and again 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 by complainant. Considering the evidences, submissions by the complainant, we are of the view that, the alleged mobile set has inherent defect and the OP.s failed to render satisfactory service to the complainant within warranty period. Thus the complainant suffered mental agony with the defective set, and also inflicted financial losses and valuable times due to the negligence and unfair practices of OP.s, and prayed for compensation.

6.         From the above discussions and perusing the submissions filed by the complainant, we have carefully verified the alleged set and found defect. It is further noticed that, the OP.s despite receiving notice of this forum are failed to take any initiations 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 and unfair which amounts to deficiency in service and hence found guilty under the C.P.Act 1986, hence the complainant is lawfully entitled for compensatory relief. 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.12,300/- (Twelve thousand & Three hundred) inter alia, to pay Rs.15,000/-(Fifteen 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 bear 12% interest per annum till its realization. Pronounced on this the 29th day of Sept' 2016.

                            Sd/-                                                   Sd/-

                      MEMBER                                    PRESIDENT, DCDRF,

                                                                              NABARANGPUR.