SRI G.K. RATH, HON’BLE PRESIDENT …                      The factual matrix of case is that, the above complainant purchased a Mobile Gionee P5W vide its IMEI No.860856030976439 on dated 25.06.2016 from OP.1 for Rs.6500/-. But later purchase of six months the mobile set reported hang, battery overheating and automatic on/off etc. So the complainant personally approached the OP No.2 for 02 times and obtained job sheets dt.13.06.2017 but the OP.2 could not rectify the defects of the device. The complainant now being reside at Nabarangpur, requests several times to the OP.1 & 2 to rectify or replace the mobile but all her efforts became futile. As thus finding no other way as per advise of OP.2, the complainant contacted the OP.no.3 customer care through phone bearing no.18002081166 but also for no action thereof. Hence the complainant contended that, the said set has inherent defect which could not be repaired by the OP.s. The complainant has purchased the mobile set from her hard earned money being allured with its better features but she restrained to facilitate the same. Due to such illegal action of OP.s the complainant harassed which could not be evaluated in terms of money. Hence, the complainant craves the leave of this Hon'ble forum seeking justice. For such illegal action of the OP.s., the complainant inflicted great humility, financial hardship and mental agony. So she prayed the Forum to direct the OP.s to pay the price of the said handset and a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- towards cost of the litigation.

2.         The counsel for complainant has filed copy of documents like retail invoice, service job sheet etc in support of his claim. On the other hand it is seen that the O.P.s neither appeared before the forum nor file any counter in spite of several chances within it’s admission. Hence they set ex parte as per Sec.13(2)(b)(i) (ii) of the C.P.Act.1986, so the forum decided to proceed the matter as per documents available in record on merit. Heard from the counsel for complainant at length, perused the record and submissions considered.

3.         It reveals from the above submissions that, being allured with great features, the complainant has procured the mobile set on dt.25.06.2016 from OP.1 paying an amount of Rs.6500/- but within valid warranty period the devise became unfunctioned. Hence the complainant approached the OP.s for repair or replace the same with a new one, but the OP.s neither replaced the set nor paid its price. Considering the submissions by the complainant, we have physically verified the set in question and found defect and at the time of repair the OP.s did not turned to her request. The complainant being a purdarsin Hindu Brahmin lady as well as a house wife sustained mental agony, loss of money and also inflicted valuable times due to the cyclostyled negligence and unfair practices of OP.s hence prayed for compensation.

4.         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.

5.         It is further seen that, the complainant has purchased the alleged mobile set from the shop of OP.1, and the OP.s carrying their business within the local limit and gains profit, hence the forum has statutory obligations to entertain the case in the interest of justice. The OP.s are violating the terms specified in the warranty conditions and acting against the provisions of contract of sales, which amounts to deficiency in service.

6.         It is also noticed that, despite service of notice of this forum the OP.s are failed to take any steps to settle the matter of complainant and question does not arise to decline the contentions of complainant without appearance and filing counter by the OP.s, so it seems that the action of OP.s is arbitrary which amounts to deficiency in service and hence they found guilty under the provisions of C.P.Act 1986.

7.         In this case the complainant has purchased the mobile set for her own & personal use and not for commercial purpose so she is a genuine consumer in this case. The complainant has filed this complaint within the local jurisdiction and lawful limitation period, hence we stands the complaint under the principles of resjudicata, so she is entitled for relief and the OP.No.2 & 3 are held responsible for compensation. As thus we allow the complaint against the OP.No.2 & 3 with cost.

ORDER

i.          The opposite party no.2 & 3 are hereby directed to pay the price of the mobile set in question of Rs.6500/- (Rupees Six thousand & five hundred only) in place of the defective alleged mobile set, inter alia, to pay Rs.10,000/-(Ten Thousand) as compensation and Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five Thousand) as cost of litigation to the complainant.

ii.         The above orders shall be complied with in 30 days from the date of receipt of the same, failing which, the total awarded sum will carry 12% interest per annum till its realization. Order pronounced in the open forum on this the 26th day of Sept' 2017.

     sd/-                                sd/-                               sd/-

MEMBER                   MEMBER                PRESIDENT,DCDRF,

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