SMT M.PADHI, MEMBER … The brief history of case is that, the complainant had purchased a mobile, Samsung Model-J700/DD, bearing its IMEI No.352347089099013 on dated 05.02.2017 from the OP.no.1 for Rs.12,000/-. But within six months of its use the mobile shows automatic switch off and over heat problems. So the complainant approached both the OP.1 and authorized service center OP.2 but though the OP.2 has issued a service paper but they could not rectify the set and advised the complainant to contact the company. Hence the complainant approached the above OP.No.3 through phone bearing no.1800407267864 requesting to replace the set but unless issued a reference no.3723498546, no action taken by OP.3. Hence the complainant harassed, inflicting upon great mental strain, physical pain and financial losses craves for the leave of this forum and prayed to direct the OP.s to pay the price of alleged handset and a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation and cost of Rs.10,000/-.
2. The counsel for OP.No.3 has entered his appearance and filed his counter to contend that, the case is not maintainable as the complainant approached this forum not with clean hands. The contentions of complainant are self explanatory, false & frivolous and the complainant should put the same with strict proof. He contends nothing except unwarranted denials and prayed to dismiss the case with cost.
3. The complainant has filed copy of invoice of the set and a service job card. The counsel for OP. 3 has filed nothing except his respective counter. Case heard from them and submissions considered.
4. From the above submissions, it reveals that the complainant has procured the above said mobile on dt.05.02.2017 from the OP.1 and the same reported defect with in valid warranty period. It is seen that, the complainant time and again approached the OP.s reporting the so called defects, but the OP.s neither rectified the set nor replaced the same with a new one. Perusing the evidences, submissions by the complainant, we are of the view that, the mobile set purchased by the complainant is defective product of OP.3 and the OP.3 being the manufacturer failed to render any service to the complainant within valid warranty period. Thus the complainant suffered from mental strain and physical pain with the defective set and also inflicted financial losses and valuable times for the negligence and unfair practices of OP.s, hence he takes shelter of this forum and prayed for appropriate compensation.
5. From the above discussions and perusing the submissions filed by the complainant, it is noticed that, the OP.s despite receiving notice of this forum are failed to take any initiations to settle the case of complainant and there is nothing to reject the contentions of complainant, so we feel that the action of OP.3 is against the principles of law of the land, arbitrary and unfair which amounts to deficiency in service, hence found guilty of the provisions laid down in C.P.Act 1986, as thus the complainant is lawfully entitled for relief. Observing manufacture defect in the said product, the complaint is allowed against OP.no.3 with costs.
ORDER
i. The opposite party no.3 supra is hereby directed to pay the cost of the mobile set Rs.12,000/- (Rupees Twelve thousand) in place of alleged defective mobile set, besides, to pay Rs.10,000/-(Ten thousand) as compensation for deficiency in service, inter alia, Rs.5,000/- (Five Thousand) as 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 16th day of April' 2018.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Memo No.______________DF Dt.______________
Copy to the Parties concerned.
PRESIDENT, DCDRF,
NABARANGPUR
