MRS MEENAKHI PADHI, MEMBER …             The fact of case is that, the complainant, had purchased a mobile, Sony, Model Z5 Premium bearing its IMEI No.35243007/08/26360 on dated 10.01.2016 from the OP.no.1 for Rs.62,700/-. After its use, the mobile reported defects like the screen always found on, battery overheating, hang problems etc. Hence the complainant approached the service center at Jeypore, Dist of Koraput for repair, but he refused to rectify the defects. So he again approached the service center i.e. OP.2 at Bhubaneswar on dt.11.08.2016 but he failed to rectify the defects of set as alleged, but issued a job sheet to that effect. So the complainant alleged that the OP.s has deliberately provide him a substandard set for a good price, hence there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP.s and to which he sustained mental agony, physical pain and financial losses due to the inactions of OP.s. 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.15,000/- as cost.

2.         The OP.1 has filed his counter but specified nothing except evasive denials. The A/A for OP.2 & 3 has filed a submission through letter wherein he contended that, the OP.2 has received the service request on dt.11.08.2016 with the alleged symptom, but they replaced the defective set with a same new one on dt.27.08.2016 which was received by the complainant on the same day. Further contends that, since the complainant was not satisfied with the new set, they offered him 2 options i.e. “1. A fresh handset of same model in exchange of existing set, OR 2. Exchange with a higher model by paying the difference in MRP of both the models”. So he prayed this forum to direct the complainant to accept anyone of the above said exchange offers.

            The complainant has filed copy of cash invoice of the alleged mobile, service job sheet, and an affidavit in support of his claim. The OP.s filed nothing except a letter. The complainant has heard the case at length and perused the record. Considered.

3.         It reveals from the record that the complainant has procured the mobile in question on dt.10.01.2016 and the same reported defects from the beginning of its use. It is seen that, the complainant time and again approached the OP.s stating the so called defects, but the OP.s neither rectified the set nor replaced it with a new one. Perusing the evidences, filed by the complainant, we are of the view that, the mobile set purchased by the complainant is substandard and the OP.s failed to render any service to the requests of complainant within valid warranty periods. Thus the complainant suffered mental agony with the defective set, and also inflicted financial losses and valuable times due to the negligence and malfeasance practices of OP.s, hence he craves the leave of this forum and prayed for compensation.

4.         From the foregoing discussions and perusing the submissions of both the parties, it is noticed that, the A/A for OP.s has taken the plea that they have already replaced the defective set with a new one on dt.27.08.2016 with satisfaction of complainant, but we have seen that the said plea is false and self explanatory. On the other hand we have verified the alleged set and found unfunctioned. So there is nothing to reject the contentions of complainant without filing counter and cogent evidences by the OP.s about their responses. It is pertinent to mention here that from most of cases, the authorized service cares are not properly working under the guidance of Companies/ Head offices for which act the customers suffers and under compulsions knocking the doors of consumer forums, hence we feel that the action of OP.3 is illegal, highhanded, arbitrary and unfair which amounts to deficiency in service and found guilty under C.P.Act 1986, hence the complainant is lawfully entitled for relief. As thus we allowed the complaint 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 Rs62,700/- (Rupees Sixty Two thousand & Seven hundred only) in place of the alleged defective set, inter alia, to pay Rs.13,000/-(Thirteen 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 bear 12% interest per annum till its realization. Pronounced on this the 01st day of Mar' 2017.

                         Sd/-                                                                  Sd/-

                   MEMBER                                               MEMBER, DCDRF,

                                                                                      NABARANGPUR.