SRI G.K. RATH, HON’BLE PRESIDENT …                      The factual matrix of case is that, the above complainant had purchased a Mobile set bearing its IMEI No.869770027086055 on dated 15.05.2016 from OP.1 paying Rs.27,000/-. Later use of just some days the mobile camera became defect. As the mobile was within valid warranty period, the complainant approached the OP.No.1 & 2 to repair. Though the OP.2 tried to repair the set but he could not redeem the same and issued a job sheet to that effect. In the mean while the complainant approached the OP.2 for so many times requesting to replace the same with a new one or avail its price but for no use. Hence the complainant contends that, the said set has some inherent defect and the OP.s sold him a substandard set with a good price and at the time of repair they did not respond to the complainant, hence the action of OP.s amounts to deficiency in service. So, the complainant craves the leave of this forum and sought for justice. For such illegal action of OP.s, the complainant inflicted with great humility, financial losses and mental agony, hence he prayed before the forum to direct the OP.s to pay the price of the said product and a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation and for litigation cost.

2.         The complainant has filed copy of evidences like retail invoice, service job sheet and affidavit in support of his claim. On the other hand it is seen that the O.P. 2 & 3 neither appeared before the forum nor file any counter in spite of several chances allowed in it’s admission. Hence they set ex parte as per Sec.13(2)(b)(i) (ii) of the C.P.Act.1986, so the forum decided to proceed the matter as evidences available in record on merit. Heard from the OP.no.1 and complainant at length, perused the record and submissions considered.

3.         It reveals from the above submissions that, being allure with attractive features in the set, the complainant has procured the same on dt.15.05.2016 from OP.1 paying an amount of Rs.27,000/- but within valid warranty period the camera of the devise became disfunctioned. Hence the complainant approached the OP.s for repair or replace the same with a new one, but the OP.s neither replaced the set nor paid its price. Considering the evidences, submissions by the complainant, we are of the view that, the set in question is a defective manufacture product and the O.P.s provides the set to the complainant with a good price but at the time of repair the OP.s did not turned to his request. Thus the complainant sustained mental agony, loss of money and also inflicted valuable times due to the negligence, arbitrary and unfair practices of OP.s hence prayed for compensation.

4.         It is further seen that, the complainant has purchased the alleged mobile set from the shop of OP.1, and the OP.s carrying their business within the local limit and gains profit, hence the forum has statutory obligations to entertain the case in the interest of justice.

5.         It is also noticed that, despite service of notice of this forum the OP.2 & 3 are failed to take any steps to settle the matter of complainant and there is nothing to disbelief the contentions of complainant without appearance, filing counter and evidences by the OP.2 & 3, hence we feel that the action of OP.s is highhanded and unfair which amounts to deficiency in service and hence they found guilty under the provisions of C.P.Act 1986.

6.         In this case the complainant has purchased the mobile set for his own & personal use and not for commercial purpose so he is a genuine consumer in this case. The complainant has also filed this complaint within the local jurisdiction and lawful limitation period, hence the complaint is maintainable in the eyes of law, so the complainant is entitled for relief and the OP.No.3 is liable for compensation. However observing inherent defect in the mobile set we allow the complaint against the OP.No.3 with cost.

                                                                 ORDER

i.          The opposite party no.3 supra is hereby directed to pay the price of the mobile set in question of Rs.27,000/- (Rupees Twenty Seven thousand only) in place of the defective alleged mobile set, inter alia, to pay Rs.5,000/-(Five Thousand only) as compensation and Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) as cost of litigation to the complainant.

ii.         The above awards shall be complied with in 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which, the total award sum will carry 12% interest per annum till its realization. Order pronounced in the open forum on this the 21st day of Sept' 2017.

MEMBER                            MEMBER                               PRESIDENT

            Memo No_______________DF         Dt………………………

            Copy to the parties concerned.

                                                                                  PRESIDENT, DCDRF,

                                                                                      NABARANGPUR