MR LAXMI NARAYAN PADHI, PRESIDENT… The substance of case is that, the Complainant being allured with attractive advertisement of OP-1 had ordered for a LYF 1s-5008 on dt.05.05.2016 on payment of Rs.13000/- vide invoice no.0119 bearing IMEI no.868779020285859 & 8687790785853. The complainant used Jio Sim as provided by OP.1 but after fifteen days of its use, the mobiles appears hang, automatic switch on/off & battery heating etc. Hence the complainant approached the service center at Jeypore, dist of Koraput on dt.11.08.16 who repaired the same but the complainant later found that, it has same problem as previous and within a few days, the same became fully unfunctioned. The complainant contends that, he several times approached the OP.s to redress his matter but all his efforts are in vain thereof. The OP provides him a defective product for a valuable consideration, hence he alleged that there is unfair practice and deficiency in service on the part of OP. So the Complainant inflicted mental tension, and financial losses due to the inaction of OP.s So he prayed before the Forum pleased to direct the OP to pay the price of alleged unit and a sum of Rs.20,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation for such unfair practice and deficiency in service on the part of OP.
2. On the other hand the A/A for OP.1 though appeared but failed to file his counter in the case despite allowing times for more than 3 months of its admission, hence he set ex parte as contemplated in Sec.13(2)(b) of the C.P.Act 1986. The complainant has filed copy of receipt, job sheet. The complainant heard the case at length, perused the record and the submissions are considered.
3. Prima facie it is found that the complainant had ordered for a LYF mobile through online on dt.05.05.2016 on payment of Rs.13000/-. But after 15 days, the product reported problems like automatic switch on/off, battery not working as per its features etc, hence the complainant approached the local service center but though the authorized service center at Jeypore tried his best to mend the set but could not rectify the defects and later the same turned off and became totally unfunctioned. Considering the evidences, submissions by the complainant, we are of the view that, the set purchased by the complainant has internal defect and the OP.1 provides a defective item to the complainant for a good price. Thus the complainant sustained mental agony and inflicted financial losses due to the negligence and unfair practices of OP.
4. With the above transactions it is noticed that, despite service of notice of this forum the OP.1 being the manufacturer neither filed their counter nor tried to take any initiations to settle the matter of complainant, hence we feel that the action of OP.1 is illegal, arbitrary, highhanded and unfair which amounts to deficiency in service and the OP.1 found guilty under the provisions of the C.P.Act 1986, as thus the complainant is entitled for relief.
So we allowed the complaint against the OP.1 with cost.
O R D E R
i. The opposite party no.1 above is hereby directed to pay the price of the set Rs.13000/- (Rupees Thirteen thousand) in place of alleged defective set, inter alia, to pay Rs.15,000/-(Fifteen thousand) as compensation and a sum of Rs.2000/-(Two thousand) towards the cost of litigation to the complainant, for such deceptive practices, deficiency in service and willful negligence.
ii. All the above directions shall be complied with in 30 days of this order, failing which, the complainant has liberty to proceed through execution against the OP. Pronounced on 30th Dec' 2016.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT, DCDRF,
NABARANGPUR.
