MR LAXMI NARAYAN PADHI, PRESIDENT…                     The factual matrix of case is that, the Complainant, had purchased a mobile, Samsung Model G-7102 bearing its IMEI No.353202069746894, on 03.08.2015 from OP.no.1 by paying Rs.13,800/. At the time of purchase, the OP.1 said to have that the mobile is insured with OP.4. Later some months and within valid warranty period on dt.07.06.16 the mobile fall down from hand and got external damages, for which the complainant approached the service center at Bhubaneswar and who mend the set up to the satisfaction of the complainant but did not issued any evidence to that effect. The complainant approached the OP.4 with all original relevant documents along with proposal form for damage claim of Rs.8415/- but the OP.4 neither settled his claim nor satisfies him in any manner rather demanding the same documents for several times in dilly dallying tactics unscrupulously. However later one month of its use, the mobile reported defects like hang, battery not charging & automatic switch off when calling etc. So the complainant approached the authorized service center situated at Jeypore, for so many times and finally approached the OP No.2 on dt.23.07.2016, though he tried to delivered his best to repair the set by updating its software etc but failed to rectify the defects and advised that the set has inherent defect, hence he advised to contact the OP.3 for more service and issued a job card thereof. Being aggrieved the complainant approached the OP.3 requesting to replace the alleged set with a new one through their toll free number i.e.180030008282 on the same day at about 07.00 P.M. but the customer care officials delivered nothing except false advises with a Ref.No.3702437122. Hence finding no other way under changing circumstances, the complainant purchased another mobile set by paying Rs.10,000/-. Due to negligence action of OP.s the Complainant inflicted with great mental agony, physical stress and financial hardship. So he prayed before the Hon’ble Forum to direct the OP.4 to pay Rs.25,000/- for such negligence and also the OP.3 to pay the price of alleged handset and a sum of Rs.40,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation for such unfair trade practice, arbitrary action, highhandedness and deficiency in service on the part of OP.s.

2.         The counsel for OP.3 Samsung Company though appeared but failed to file any counter in the case despite adequate chances given to him within its admission. The counsel for OP.4 also entered his appearance and filed his counter wherein he averred nothing except evasive denials. Hence all set ex parte except the OP.4 as per provisions envisaged in C.P.Act.1986. The complainant has filed cash invoice of the alleged mobile, estimate copy, declaration form of OP.4, some relevant documents provided by OP.4, affidavit and warranty card of the set. The complainant & counsels for OP.3 & 4 has 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 submissions, it reveals that the complainant has procured the mobile in question on dt.03.08.2015 and the same became externally damaged with in valid insurance and warranty period. It is seen that, the complainant time and again approached the OP.4 claiming the repair cost but the OP.4 paid a deaf ear to his legitimate claim. It is pertinent that, at the time of purchase the OP.1 assured him that, the Samsung Company has a tie up with New India Assurance i.e. OP.4, hence the mobile covered insurance for one year, but after external damage the complainant claimed the OP.4 for repair cost through OP.1, but in result the OP.4 suggested the complainant to sent the required documents with proposal forms. As per suggestion the complainant has already send the required documents along with claim form but finally the OP.4 at a later stage did not respond his request and they kept the complainant in a dark in dilly dallying tactics. It is pertinent that, prior to transmit the estimate copy, job sheet of OP.1 wherein clearly mentioned the IMEI number & other information to the OP.4, but the OP.4 deliberately ignored the claim of complainant for a long time demanding with a vogue plea of policy number. Further the counsel for OP.4 entered his appearance and prayed for time in cyclostyled manner and finally on dt.29.09.2016 he assured to settle the matter with the complainant outside the forum but later he filed an objection at a later stage which was out rightly rejected by this forum. Hence from the evidence, contentions by the complainant we found there is gross negligence and deficiency in service on the part of OP.4.

5.         Further from the record it reveals that, the set in question after satisfactory repair by the authorized service center could not proper rectified the software and inherent defects. Considering the evidences, submissions by the complainant, we are of the view that, the mobile set purchased by the complainant has also inherent defect and the OP.s failed to mend or replace the same prior to uncountable approaches within warranty period. Thus the complainant suffered from mental stress with the defective set, and also inflicted financial losses and valuable times due to the deliberate negligence and unfair practices of OP.s, hence he craves the leave of this forum and prayed for legitimate compensation.

6.         From the above discussions and perusing the submissions filed by the complainant, we have carefully verified the mobile in question and found internal defects and the same do not switch on. 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, hence we feel that the action of OP.no.3 & 4 is illegal, highhanded, arbitrary and unfair which amounts to gross negligence and deficiency in service, hence they found guilty as per provisions of the C.P.Act 1986, hence the complainant is lawfully entitled for compensatory relief. Thus the complaint is allowed against OP.no.3 & 4 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.13,800/- (Rupees thirteen thousand & eight hundred), 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.         The OP.no.4 is hereby directed to pay the repair cost of the mobile i.e. Rs.8415/- (Rupees Eight thousand four hundred & fifteen only) and compensation of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousand) to the complainant.

iii.        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 24th day of Oct' 2016.

     Sd/-                                                               Sd/-

MEMBER                                         PRESIDENT, DCDRF,

                                                                NABARANGPUR.

Date of Preparation: 

Date of dispatch      :  

Date of received by                                                           

the A/A for Ops / Complainant  :

Initial of the dispatcher.             Memo No_______________          Dtd…………………………

                        Copy to the parties concerned.