SRI R.S.NAYAK, MEMBER … The brief history of case is that, the complainant had procured a Samsung mobile, model Note-9 bearing IMEI No.359447090038480 on dated 24.08.2018 from the OP.no.2 for Rs.67900/-. Just after use the mobile shows defect like hang, automatic on/off speaker problem etc. So the complainant approached the OP.2 who sent the mobile to the OP.no.3 on 05.12.2018 who later repair return the same to the complainant but after few days of use the devise reported the same troubles as previous. The complainant stated that within a few days the devise shows multiple problems. The OP.s provides him a substandard defective device for a high price. The complainant further contends that he several times requests the OP.s for its repair/replace but no action has been taken by OP.s. Hence the complainant alleged that the entire action of OP.s amounts to deficiency in service, hence prayed to direct the OP.s to pay the cost of the product and a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.5000/- towards cost of litigation.

2.         The counsel for OP.No.1 has filed counter to contend that, the case is not maintainable as the complainant approached this forum with vogue pleas. The allegation established with inherent manufacture defect is without relying any expert opinion. The entire contentions of complainant are self explanatory, false & frivolous and the complainant should have put the same with strict proof. He further contends that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP.s, and also contends that the OP.3 has well repaired the set on request of complainant which he received with utmost satisfaction. Hence he prayed to dismiss the case with cost.

3.         The counsel for OP.1 and complainant has heard the case at length. The complainant has filed copy of some documents along with his affidavit. The OP.2 & 3 neither appeared nor filed their reply, hence they declared ex parte and the forum going to decide the matter as per evidences in record on merit. Submissions after perusal considered.

4.         From all corners of the case, it is observed that, the OP.1 unless repair or replace the alleged devise have challenged in their counter that the allegation made by complainant on manufacturing defect is without relying any expert report. In our view there are plenty of decisions of Hon’ble Apex Court that Consumer forum are not bound to prefer for expert report in each and every cases. It is also apparent from record that the complainant approached the OP.s again and again but neither of the OP.s rendered him appropriate service nor settled his claim with satisfaction prior to filing of the present case. So the contention of OP is baseless, hence we found that the OP.s without following the warranty norms acts as illegal and highhanded, which seems gross abuse of process of law, per se, we found arbitrary and unfair practices on the part of OP.s which otherwise amounts to deficiency in service. As thus the complainant is harassed as alleged hence he lawfully entitled for compensatory relief. However as the OP.1 is the manufacturer of the said product, the complaint is allowed against OP.no.1 with costs.  

                                                   ORDER

i.          The opposite party no.1 supra is hereby directed to pay the invoice price of the mobile set i.e. Rs.67900/- (Rupees Sixty Seven thousand & nine hundred) in place of the alleged defective devise, inter alia, to pay Rs.5,000/-(Five thousand) as compensation and a sum of Rs.3000/-(Three thousand) towards the cost of litigation to the complainant.

ii.         All the above directions shall be complied with in 30 days of receipt of this order, failing which, the total sum shall carry 12% interest per annum till its realization. Pronounced on this the 9th day of Dec' 2019.

                Sd/-                                                                 Sd/-

         MEMBER                                              PRESIDENT,DCDRF,

                                                                             NABARANGPUR