SRI R.S.NAYAK, MEMBER …              The factual matrix of case is that, the above complainant had purchased a mobile, make Micromax Bolt (Q346) bearing its IMEI No.911480005491008 & 911480005491016 on dated 14/10/2016 from OP.no.1 by paying an amount of Rs.4600/-. After two months of its purchase, the mobile appears troubles like automatic discharge of battery etc. So the complainant approached the authorized service center OP.no.2, though he replaced its battery with a new one but the set persist the same problems as it was in previous. Hence the complainant further approached the service center for repair. The OP.2 said that the set has some manufacture defect and only the company can repair or replace the same and receiving the same averred that it will take time. So the complainant time and again approached the manufacturer i.e. OP.no.3 and the OP.2 through email letter but for no result thereof. Hence the complainant inflicted mental tension, and financial losses due to the negligence service 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.20,000/- as compensation and Rs.2000/- as cost of litigation.

2.         The complainant has filed copy of invoice of the alleged mobile set, email letters etc. The OP.s neither appeared nor filed their counter in the case, hence they set ex parte as per provisions of C.P.Act 1986, so we decided to proceed the case as evidences available in record on merit. Heard from the side of complainant and perused the records.

3.         From the above submissions, it is found that the complainant has procured the mobile set on dt.14.10.2016 by paying an amount of Rs.4600/- and the same appears defect in warranty period of one year. As per legal norms of warranty the complainant approached the OP.s for necessary repair, but the OP.s neither could mend the same nor replaced it with a new one despite of several requests. Considering the evidences, written submissions by the complainant, we are of the view that, the mobile set purchased by the complainant has inherent defect and the OP.s failed to provide service to the complainant within valid warranty period. Thus the complainant being @ age of 78 years sustained 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 for the leave of this forum and prayed for compensation.

4.         Based on the evidence adduced and the pleading put forth, it is noticed that, despite service of notice of this forum the OP.s are failed to take any initiations to settle the matter of complainant and still the set is with their possessions, hence we feel that the action of OP.s is illegal, arbitrary and unfair which amounts to deficiency in service and hence found guilty under the provisions of the C.P.Act 1986, as thus the complainant is entitled for relief. However observing manufacture defect in the device we allowed the complaint against the OP.no.3 with cost.

ORDER

i.          The opposite party no.3 supra is hereby directed to pay the cost of the mobile set in question of Rs.4600/- (Rupees four thousand & six hundred only), besides to pay Rs.6,000/-(Six 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 23rd day of Feb' 2018.

   Sd/-                                                Sd/-                                           Sd/-

MEMBER                                 MEMBER                          PRESIDENT,DCDRF,

(Sri R.S.Nayak)                        (Smt M.Padhi)                          (Sri G.K.Rath)