MR LAXMI NARAYAN PADHI, PRESIDENT…               The factual matrix of case is that, the complainant had procured a mobile Sony XPERIA Z5 DUAL bearing IMEI No.352189071414598, on dated 02.11.2015 from OP.no.1 for Rs.50,000/-. But after use of three months, the mobile reported problems like hang while calling, overheating, touch screen etc. So the complainant approached the authorized service center i.e. OP.No.2 for several times but the OP.2 issued job chart only for two times i.e. on dt.22.04.16 & dt.24.09.16 and transmit the set to his higher ups to Bhubaneswar for repair but the OP.s neither rectified the defect nor replaced with a new one to that effect and said that the unit has some serious issues which he not be able to mend and advised the complainant to contact the OP.3 for onward services. Hence the complainant approached the Company through toll free No.1800 3000 2800 & 18001037799 and requested to mend or replace the set with a new one, but the customer care officials delivered nothing except milk coated assurances. The complainant purchased the set by paying huge sum from his long corpus money being allured with better features but he restrained to enjoy the same due to sub standard quality and malafide intentions of OP.s, hence under compulsion he purchased another hand set by paying Rs.15,000/- for his use. Hence the Complainant inflicted great mental agony and financial losses causing the arbitrary and highhanded actions of OP.s. So he prayed before the Forum to direct the OP.s to pay the price of alleged handset i.e. Rs.50,000/- and a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation and cost of litigation for such unfair practice and deficiency in service by the OP.s.                                          

2.         The OP.s neither appeared nor filed any counter in the case despite admitting adequate chances in its adjudication. Hence the OP.s set ex parte as per rulings contemplated in C.P.Act.1986. The complainant has filed cash invoice of the alleged mobile, 02 service job sheet of OP.2, 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 transactions, it reveals that the complainant has procured the mobile in question on dt.02.11.2015 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. Perusing the evidences filed by the complainant, we are of the view that, the mobile set purchased by the complainant has manufacture defect and the OP.s failed to render any satisfactory service to the complainant within valid warranty period violating contract of sales. Thus the complainant sustained great mental agony with the defective set, and also inflicted professional, 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 compensatory relief.

5.         From the above discussions and perusing the submissions by the complainant, we have carefully examined 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 initiations 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 compensatory relief. As thus we allowed the complaint against the OP.3 with cost.

                                 O  R  D  E  R

i.          The opposite party no.3 supra is hereby directed to pay the price of the set Rs.50,000/- (Rupees thousand) inter alia, to pay Rs.20,000/-(twenty thousand) as compensation and a sum of Rs.10,000/-(ten 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 13th day of Dec' 2016.

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.