MR LAXMI NARAYAN PADHI, PRESIDENT…             The complaint in brief is that, the complainant had purchased a Mobile set Make Micromax, bearing model No. A63, IMEI No. 911331650856054 & 911331651006055 on dated 05/05/2015 from OP.No.1 by paying the an amount of Rs.6,000/-. She contended that, after purchase of just one month, the mobile found defect. However, the complainant approached the OP No.2 on dt.17.08.2015 to redeem the troubles in the hand set and the OP.2 without delay render his service rectifying the defect and issued a job card to that effect and returned the set to the complainant, but unfortunately the very next day, the set shown the same problems. The complainant again the next day approached the staff of OP.2 and request to replace the defective set but further the OP.2 tried his level best to repair the set and as the set has some inherent problems he could not rectify the defect and advise the complainant to contact the company i.e. OP.3, as thus the complainant very day contact the OP.no.3 through their phone bearing no.1860 500 8286 but for no result till the filing of this case. Hence she knows well that, the mobile set has some inherent manufacture defect which could not be repaired by the OP.s. The OP.3 being manufacturer of the set deliberately neglects to render proper services which amounts to deficiency in service. Due to such illegal action of the OP.s, the complainant inflicted great humility, financial losses and mental agony. So she prays before the Forum to direct the OP.No.3 to pay the price of the said handset as mentioned above along with a punitive cost of Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- towards cost of the litigation for such negligent and deficiency in service on the part of the OP.s in the interest of justice.

2.         The OP.no.3 though participated in the process of adjudication by filing vakalat but fails to file any counter to defend the case. Hence the OP.s set ex parte as per Sec.13(2)(b) of the provisions of C.P.Act.1986. The complainant has filed copy of retail invoice of OP.no.1 dt.05.05.2015, a Service Job sheet of OP.2 dt.17.08.2015 and warranty papers of the mobile. The complainant has been heard the case at length and the submissions considered.

3.         The consumer protection act is a socio economic beneficial law, intended for speedy delivery of justice to the aggrieved 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.         Prima facie it reveals from the record that the complainant has purchased the mobile set on dt.05.05.2015 and the same became defect with in valid warranty period i.e. dt.17.08.2015. Though the OP.2 has repaired the set on 17.8.15 but the very next day i.e. on 18.8.15 the set shown the same problems as it was in previous, but the OP.2 though tried his best to redeem the set but could not rectify the defects and knowing manufacture problems, advised the complainant to contact the OP.no.3 for necessary repair or replace the set, but despite several approaches by the complainant, the OP.3 did not turned to the complaint and he neither repaired the set nor replaced with a new one and kept the complainant in dark.

5.         On the other hand it is seen from the transaction that, the OP.no.3 despite receiving notice of this forum did not cared to file counter in the case in 90 days of its admission. Hence unless submission of counter by OP.s, it is nothing to disbelieve the contentions of complainant. It is also seen from the complaint that the complainant has complained to the OP.3 through the toll free number bearing No.18605008286 but all the efforts became futile.

6.         The complainant has submitted the defective mobile set, copy of retail invoice, warranty paper in support of her claim before this forum. We physically verified the alleged set and found the set fully defunct. The complainant further contends that, as per instructions of OP.2 the complainant contacted the OP.3 to their customer care bearing No.18605008286 on dt.17.08.15 but for no fruitful results delivered by the OP.3. On complaint, this forum service notice to the OP.s along with complaint petitions but the OP.3 neither took any initiation nor tried to settle the matter with the complainant. Considering the evidences, submissions by the complainant, we feel that, the mobile set procured by the complainant is an inherent defective manufacture product hence the set could not be redeemed by the OP.s. Hence the complainant being a house wife inflicted great mental agony with the defective set, and also inflicted financial losses hence under compulsions she craves the leave of this forum and prayed for justice. In our view, the action of OP.3 in this case is unfair, highhanded, arbitrary, and violations of terms and conditions of contract of sales as specified in the warranty papers. So the OP.3 found guilty of negligence and deficiency in service and the complainant is entitled for relief. The complaint is allowed against the 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 i.e. Rs.6000/- (Rupees Six thousand) inter alia to pay Rs.9,000/-(Nine 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 carry 12% interest per annum till its realization.

            Pronounced in the open forum on 20th day of Nov' 2015.

  Sd/-                           Sd/-                             Sd/-

MEMBER          MEMBER             PRESIDENT, DCDRF,

                                                               NABARANGPUR.