MR LAXMI NARAYAN PADHI, PRESIDENT…               The factual matrix of case is that, the Complainant, had purchased a Micromax mobile, Model Q391 bearing its IMEI No.911433702245342//911433702497844 on 14.11.2015 from the OP.no.1 for Rs.7,500/- But after 03 months the mobile reported hang & battery overheating. So the complainant approached the authorized service center for 2 times in the month of Feb & June'16 but though the OP.2 tried to rectify the defect but did not issued any job sheet thereof and the unit in question could not well repaired by the OP.2. Hence the complainant further approached the OP No.2 on dt.23.09.2016, though he also tried to mend the set by updating its software etc but he could not rectify the defects as reported but issued a job sheet and advised him to approach the OP.3 for more services. So the complainant looking inherent defect approached the OP.3 requesting to replace the alleged set with a new one through their customer care number 18605008286 on the very next day at about 07.43 A.M., but who delivered nothing except unwarranted advises. So the complainant alleged that the devise having inherent defect the OP.3 sold him deliberately which is a substandard one, so the complainant procured another mobile set by paying Rs.6,000/- under compulsions. So there is deficiency in service on the part of OP.s and the complainant inflicted mental agony, physical pain and financial losses due to the malfeasance action 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.40,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation.

2.         The counsel for OP.3 though appeared but failed to file any counter in the case despite allowing adequate chances in its admission. Hence the OP.3 set ex parte as rulings envisaged in C.P.Act.1986. The OP.2 filed his counter wherein he specified nothing except evasive denials. The complainant has filed cash invoice of the alleged mobile, service job sheet of OP.2, and warranty card of the set. The counsel for OP.3, OP.2 & complainant together 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.14.11.2015 and the same reported defect with in valid warranty period. It is seen that, the complainant time and again approached the OP.s reporting the so called defects, but the OP.s neither rectified the set nor replaced it with a new one despite of several requests. Perusing the evidences, filed by the complainant, we are of the view that, the mobile set purchased by the complainant has 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 malfeasance practices of OP.s, hence he craves the leave of this forum and prayed for legitimate compensation.

5.         From the above discussions and perusing the submissions by the complainant, we have carefully verified the mobile in question and found defects. It is further noticed that, the OP.s in spite of complaint made by complainant and also receiving notice of this forum are failed to take any actions to settle the matter of complainant and there is nothing doubt in the contentions of complainant without filing counter and evidences by the OP.s, hence in view of the above the action of OP.3 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.

                                         O  R  D  E  R

i.          The opposite party no.3 supra is hereby directed to pay the price of the set Rs.7,500/- (Rupees seven thousand & five 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.         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 12th day of Dec' 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.