MR LAXMI NARAYAN PADHI, PRESIDENT…                       The factual matrix of case is that, the Complainant had purchased a mobile Make Sony, Model no.E5363 bearing it's IMEI No. 352196071177083, on dated 30.10.2015 from OP.no.1 for Rs.22,200/-. Later three months, the said mobile reported hang, touch not working etc. So the complainant approached the authorized service center of OP.No.2 for two times on dt.02.02.16 & on dt.05.04.16 requesting to repair but he neither repair nor issued any Job sheet to that effect and said that the unit has some serious issues which he not able to rectify and advised the complainant to contact the OP.3 & 4 for more services. As per advice of OP.2 and despite having an established service provider at this locality, the complainant personally visited to the OP.3 along with mobile on dt.18.07.2016, though he tried to rectify the defect but after use the mobile appears the same problems as previous. The complainant residing at Nabarangpur i.e. around 550 Kms distance from Bhubaneswar and it is quite hard on his part to approach the OP.3 for time to time by paying huge expenses. Hence through Company’s toll free No.1800 3000 2800 he 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 being allured with better facilities but he deprived to get the same due to the inaction of OP.s, hence finding no other way he purchased another mobile set by paying Rs.15,000/- Hence the Complainant inflicted to great mental tension and financial losses. So he prayed before this Forum to direct the OP.s to pay the price of alleged handset i.e. Rs.22,200/-, pay Rs.6000/- towards the expenses of visiting to Bhubaneswar and a sum of Rs.40,000/- as compensation and Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation for such unfair practice and deficiency in service by the OP.s in the interest of justice.

2.         The OP.s neither appeared nor filed any counter in the case despite adequate time and chances given to them within its admission. Hence the OP.s set ex parte as per provisions envisaged in C.P.Act.1986 and we decide to proceed the case with evidences filed by the complainant which are available in record. The complainant has filed cash invoice of the alleged mobile, service job sheet of OP.3 and warranty card of the set. The complainant minutely heard the case and perused the record.

3.         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.

4.         From the above contentions, it reveals that the complainant has procured the mobile in question on dt.30.10.2015 and the same became defect with in valid warranty period. It is seen from the evidences that, the complainant time and again approached the OP.s reporting the alleged defects, but the OP.s neither rectified the set nor replaced the same with a new one despite of several requests. Considering the evidences, submissions by the complainant, we are of the view that, the mobile set purchased by the complainant has some inherent manufacture defect and the OP.s failed to render any satisfactory service to the complainant within warranty period. Thus the complainant suffered from mental agony with the defective set, and also inflicted financial losses and valuable times due to the negligence and unfair practices of OP.s, hence he craves the leave of this forum and prayed for legitimate compensation.

5.         We have carefully verified the mobile in question and found serious hang and other defects. It is further noticed 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 doubt the contentions of complainant without filing counter and evidences by the OP.s, hence we feel that the action of OP is illegal, highhanded, arbitrary and unfair which amounts to deficiency in service and found guilty under the provisions of the C.P.Act 1986, hence the complainant is lawfully entitled for relief. Due to manufacture defect, the complaint is allowed against OP.no.4 with costs.                                                         

                                                    O  R  D  E  R

i.          The opposite party no.4 supra is hereby directed to pay the price of the set Rs.22,200/- (Rupees Twenty two thousand & two hundred) inter alia, to pay Rs.15,000/-(Fifteen thousand) as compensation and a sum of Rs.5000/-(Five thousand) towards the cost of litigation to the complainant.

ii.         The directions shall be complied with in 30 days of this order, failing which, the total sum will add 12% interest per annum till its realization. Pronounced on this the 25th day of Oct' 2016.

                       Sd/-                                                              Sd/-

                  MEMBER                                           PRESIDENT, DCDRF,

                                                                                   NABARANGPUR.