MR LAXMI NARAYAN PADHI, PRESIDENT… The substance of case is that, the Complainant had purchased a mobile make Sony, Model no.D2302, IMEI No. 352774064820628, on dated 10.06.2015 from OP.no.1 by paying Rs.21,000/-. Later some months of it's use within warranty, the said mobile reported problems like hang when calling, internet, applications not responding etc. So the complainant approached the authorized service center OP.No.2 on dt.23.02.16 and handover the set for necessary repair and also request him to replace the set with a new one, but who received the set and transmit the same to Berhampur, dist of Ganjam for necessary repair and handover the same on dt.25.02.2016 to the complainant and issued a Job sheet to that effect and the service engineers said that the set has some major problems which they could not able to rectify and advised the complainant to contact the OP.3 for onward services. As per advice of OP.2, the complainant approached the customer care of OP.3 through their toll free No.1800 3000 2800 and requested to mend or replace the set with a new one, but the customer care officials delivered nothing except false assurances. The complainant purchased the set with high cost for better facilities but he refrained from facilitate the same due to deficiency & inaction of OP.s, hence finding no other way he purchased another mobile set by paying Rs.5,500/- Hence the Complainant 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.60,000/- as compensation and Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation for such unfair practice and deficiency in service on the part of OP.s.
2. The counsel for OP.1 & 3 entered appearance and filed counter jointly on behalf of parties and contended that, the complainant had purchased the alleged mobile on 10.06.15 and reported problem before the service center for no power in the said handset on dt.23.2.16, and on complaint the service engineer rectified the problem by replacing battery cover and updated the software. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP.s. So he prayed that, the complaint is vexatious, hence liable to be dismissed with cost.
3. On the other hand the OP.2 neither appeared on call nor filed any counter despite several chances given to him since admission of the case. Hence the OP.2 set ex parte as provisions contemplated in Sec.13(2)(b) of C.P.Act.1986. The complainant has filed cash invoice of the alleged mobile, service job sheet of OP.no.2 and warranty card of the set. Parties 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 set on dt.10.06.2015 and the same reported to be defect with in valid warranty period. Hence the complainant approached the OP.s for necessary repair averring the alleged problems, but though the OP.2 tried to rectify the defects technically but on subsequent period the mobile appears the same problem as it was in previous. Later the complainant approached the OP.s for several times to replace the set with a new one but all his efforts were in futile. 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 or replace the set with a new one to the complainant within warranty period. Thus the complainant sustained from mental agony with the defective set, and also 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.
6. From the above discussions and perusing the submissions filed by the parties, we have carefully examined the alleged product and found that, the allegations leveled by the complainant are somehow true as per his contentions. It is further seen 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 unbelief the contentions of complainant. Hence we feel that the action of OP.3 is illegal, arbitrary, highhanded and unfair which amounts to deficiency in service and hence found guilty under the provisions of the C.P.Act 1986, hence the complainant is entitled for 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 supra is hereby directed to pay the price of the set Rs.21,000/- (Twenty One thousand) only, inter alia, to pay Rs.10,000/-(Ten 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 31st day of May' 2016.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT, DCDRF,
NABARANGPUR.
