DATE OF FILING: 05.06.2014
Sri Karuna Kar Nayak, President.
The complainant Ch. Vijoya Kumar has filed this consumer complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Parties ( in short the O.Ps.) and for redressal of his grievance before this Forum.
2. Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that he purchased one Mobile set Model N-LAVA E -702, IMEI NO. 911330350056940 and 911330350006937(Double SIM) charger No.TY2130004629 on dated 03.12.2013 for payment of Rs.8,900/- from the O.P.No.3 as a gift to his wife swapna. After purchase of the Mobile set on 03.12.2013 the said became defect for battery discharges and the complainant handed over the same to the O.P.No.2 being the service centre for rectification of the defect. The O.P.No.2 after rectification, handed over the mobile set on 21.12.2013. Again the mobile set became total dead on 05.02.2014 and the complainant approached the O.P.No.2 for rectification of the defect on 06.02.2014. After one month and above, the O.P.No.2 handed over the mobile set on 14.03.2014, but there was mechanical part failure having touch secret defective/not working, for which the set was handed over on the same day i.e. on 14.03.2014. After mechanical parts replaced, the O.P.No.2 handed over the mobile set on 25.03.2014, but due to software corrupted, the set was again handed over to the O.P.No.2 on same day i.e. on 25.03.2014. After the software up-graded, the mobile set was released on 25.03.2014 which again became defective on 08.04.2014 for mechanical failure and the mobile set was again handed over to the O.P.No.2. The complainant purchased the mobile set on dated 03.12.2013 and hardly kept the same set for use and due to manufacturing defect the said set is always with the Service Center. The said mobile set is yet with the O.P.No.2 as on date. The complainant requested the O.P.No.2 for a new mobile set without any defect or to call upon the O.P.No.1 for refund of the money value of sum Rs.8900/- only alongwith interest. The O.P.No.2 neither replace the defective mobile set which is having manufacturing defect nor refunds the money of Rs.8900/- alongwith interest. For the deficiencies of service on the part of the O.P.No.1 and 2, the complainant has suffered from harassment, causing mental agony from 13.12.2013 to till date. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps the complainant prayed to direct the O.Ps either refund Rs.8900/- only with interest or to replace the mobile set with a new, compensation for Rs.25,000/- for harassment and mental agony, cost of Rs.5000/- in the best interest of justice.
3. The complaint is admitted and notices were issued to the Opposite Parties for their appearance and filing written version on the date fixed. Though notice is received by O.P.No.3 but he did not appear as such he is set exparte on 07.06.2016. Notice could not serve to O.P.No.1 and 2 in their address given by the complainant as such the complainant was directed for publishing notice in daily newspaper. Accordingly Advocate for complainant filed newspaper “Anupam Bharat” dated 08.06.2016 showing publishing notice against O.P.No.1 and 2. But they neither preferred to appear nor filed any written version, as such O.P.No.1 set exparte on dated 18.07.2017, O.P.No.2 set exparte on dated 19.07.2016.
4. To substantiate his case the complainant has filed his evidence on affidavit and documents as per list.
5. On the date of exparte hearing of the case, we heard the learned counsel for the complainant and perused the case record and the materials placed on it. We have also thoughtfully considered the submissions made before us by the learned counsel for the complainant. It reveals that during the warranty period the complainant’s mobile became defective and the complainant went to the service center of O.P.No.2 on dated 13.12.2013, 21.12.2013, 06.02.2014, 14.03.2014, 25.03.2014, and 08.04.2014 respectively but O.P.No.2 could not rectify the defect. It also reveals that inspite of opportunity was given to O.Ps they could not utilize it.
6. On foregoing discussion it is crystal clear that the O.Ps are negligent in rendering proper service to the complainant. Hence, in our considered view there is deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.
7. So far as the compensation and cost of the case is concerned, we are convinced that the complainant has approached O.P.No.2 times without number for repairing or replacement of his defective mobile set due to problem during warranty/guarantee period. But neither O.P.No.2 nor O.P.No.1 & 3 have taken any effective steps to short out the problem of the complainant for which the complainant has suffered physically and mentally for which he is to be compensated. Further the complainant is also entitled to get cost of litigation since he has hired the services of an advocate for filing his complaint in this Forum and has incurred expenses attending the case. Under the above facts and circumstances, in our considered view, it will be just and proper to award compensation as well as litigation cost in favour of the complainant.
8. In the result, the complainant’s case is allowed on exparte against the O.Ps. The O.Ps are jointly and severally liable as such they are directed to refund the cost of the defective mobile set i.e. Rs.8,900/- and Rs.5000/- as compensation for mental agony alongwith Rs.2000/- as cost of litigation to the complainant within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which all the dues shall be realized at the rate of 12% interest per annum. The case of the complainant is disposed of accordingly.
The order is pronounced on this day of 14th November 2018 under the signature and seal of this Forum. The office is directed to supply copy of order to the parties free of cost and a copy of same be sent to the server of www.confonet.nic.in for posting in internet and thereafter the file be consigned to record room.
