MR LAXMI NARAYAN PADHI, PRESIDENT…              The factual matrix of case is that, the Complainant had purchased a Mobile set Make Micromax A-102 bearing IMEI No. 911363958985129 on dated 15.01.2015 from OP.No.01 by paying an amount of Rs.8100/-. After four months, the set reported power on/off problem. The complainant approached the OP No.2 to rectify the defect for so many times, to which the OP.2 issued a job sheet on dt.22.5.15 and said that, the set has some major problems which could not be repaired by him, and advised to contact the OP.3 for onward services. The complainant made contact with the OP.3 through OP.no.2 but for no fruitful result thereof. Hence, the complainant contends that, the said set has some inherent problem which could not be repaired by the OP.s. The complainant has purchased the mobile set from his hard earned money being allured with attractive features but he restrained to facilitate the same. Hence, the complainant craves the leave of this forum seeking justice. For such illegal action of the OP.s, the complainant inflicted great humility, financial hardship and mental tension. So he prays before the Forum to direct the OP.s to pay the cost of the said handset and a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation and cost of the litigation for such negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the OP.s.

2.         On the other hand the OP.2 entered his appearance and filed counter wherein he contended that, the complainant had procured the Mobile set Micromax A-102 on dated 15.01.2015. It is also admitted that, the complainant had approached him on dt.22.05.15 with a complaint of power does not switch on, and the OP.2 at his level best repaired the set and issued a service job sheet to that effect. So the OP.2 being an authorized service personal of OP.3, provides service as per procedure of company and as if there arouse any inherent defect in the set, at least he is not responsible and liable. The OP.no.2 being an educated unemployed youth preferred the mobile service center for the purpose of his livelihood. Further he performed his duty up to the satisfaction of complainant i.e. clearly reflects in the job sheet wherein the complainant signed the same with utmost satisfaction. Hence there is no deficiency in service on his part as alleged. The claim of compensation and cost would be prejudice, if allow against this OP.2. Hence he prayed to dismiss the case against the OP.no.2 in the interest of justice.

3.         The counsel for OP.3 though entered his appearance but failed to file his counter. The complainant has filed cash invoice of the alleged mobile, service job sheet. The complainant, counsel for OP.3 & OP.2 together minutely heard the case at length and perused the record.

4.         From the above submissions, it reveals that the complainant has procured the mobile set on dt.15.01.2015 and the same reported defect with in warranty period. Hence the complainant approached the OP.s for necessary repair averring the alleged defects, but the OP.s could not mend the set and failed to replace the same with a new one despite of several requests. Considering the evidences, submissions by the parties, we are of the view that, the mobile set purchased by the complainant has inherent defect and the OP.3 failed to provide service within warranty period. Thus the complainant sustained to mental agony with the defective set, and inflicted financial losses and valuable times due to the negligence and unscrupulous practices of OP.s, hence he craves the leave of this forum and prayed for compensation.

5.         From the above discussions and perusing the submissions by the parties, it is clear that the alleged set is still with the OP.s. It is also seen from the above transaction that, the OP.3 despite receiving notice of this forum is failed to take any steps to settle the matter of complainant and there is nothing to decline the contentions of complainant. The action of OP.no.3 is illegal and unfair which amounts to deficiency in service and hence found guilty under the provisions of the C.P.Act 1986, and thus the complainant is entitled for compensatory relief. As the mobile set reported manufacture problems, we allow the case against OP.no.3 with costs.

                                                  O  R  D  E  R

i.          The opposite party no.3 supra is hereby directed to pay the price of the set Rs.8100/- (Eight thousand & one hundred) inter alia, to pay Rs.5,000/-(Five 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 total sum will carry 12% interest per annum till its realization. Pronounced on 20th day of Oct' 2016.

                   Sd/-                                                           Sd/-

            MEMBER                                        PRESIDENT, DCDRF,

                                                                         NABARANGPUR.