SRI G.K. RATH, PRESIDENT …    The factual matrix of case is that, the complainant has procured a Mobile set LYF FLAME bearing its IMEI No.911510556666671 on dated 23.09.2016 from OP.1 paying Rs.4200/-. Later use of just six months the mobile found defect like hang, automatic switch off, overheat etc. So the complainant approached the customer care center of OP. on dt.09.03.2017 through toll free number 18008909999 requesting to repair or replace the set with a new one, but for no action. The complainant further approached the OP.1 also put his grievance but he also refused his request. Hence the complainant inflicted mental tension, and financial losses due to the deficiency in 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.60,000/- as compensation and Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation.

2.         Though the OP.1 appeared before the forum but failed to file any counter in the case.

3.         The counsel for OP.2 has filed counter and stated that, the case is not maintainable as the forum lacks jurisdiction to try the case. In warranty documents there is clear mention that the product provides exclusive jurisdiction of the courts in Mumbai only. He further averred nothing except evasive denials and prayed to dismiss the case with cost against the complainant. 

4.         The complainant has filed copy of relevant documents in support of his claim. The OP.2 has filed nothing except their respective counters along with an affidavit in support of his claim, so the forum decided to proceed the matter as evidences available in record on merit. Heard from the A/A for parties at length, perused the record and submissions considered.

5.         It reveals from the above submissions that, being allure with attractive features in the set, the complainant has procured the same on dt.23.09.2016 from OP.1 paying an amount of Rs.4200/-. But after six months of it purchase the devise appears defect, hence the complainant approached the OP.s through toll free number requesting for repair or replaces the same with a new one, but the OP.s neither rectified the set nor replaced or paid its price. Considering the evidences, submissions by the complainant, we are of the view that, the set in question is a defective product. Thus the complainant sustained mental agony, loss of money and also inflicted valuable times due to the negligence, arbitrary and unfair practices of OP.s hence prayed for compensation.

6.         It is pertinent to mention here that the OP.2 contends in his counter that the forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the instant matter and put his objection that the matter is only within the judicature of Mumbai Courts. But the complainant purchased the alleged mobile from OP.no.1 who resides at Main Road, Nabarangpur, hence rejecting the plea we are going to decide the present matter provisions contemplating Sec.11 (2) (a) (b) & (c) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 on merit. It is further seen that, the OP.2 carrying their business within the local limit through their dealers/retailers and getting profits, hence the forum has statutory obligations to entertain the case in the interest of justice.

7.         It is also noticed that, despite service of notice of this forum the OP.s are failed to take any coercive steps to settle the matter of complainant and we found there is no wrong in the contentions of complainant, hence we feel that the action of OP.s is highhanded and unfair which amounts to deficiency in service and found guilty of the provisions of C.P.Act 1986.

8.         In this case the complainant has purchased the mobile set for his own & personal use and not for commercial purpose so he established as a genuine consumer under the OP.s. The complainant has also filed this complaint within the local jurisdiction and lawful limitation period, hence the complaint is maintainable in the eyes of law, and as the complainant is sustained losses in every corner, he is entitled for relief. However observing inherent defect in the mobile set we allow the complaint against the OP.No.2 with cost.

                                                                     ORDER

i.          The opposite party no.2 supra is hereby directed to pay the cost of the mobile set Rs.4200/- (Rupees Four thousand & Two hundred) in place of alleged defective mobile set, besides, to pay Rs.5,000/-(Five thousand) as compensation & Rs.2000/- (Two Thousand) as cost of litigation to the complainant.

ii.         All the above directions shall be complied with in 30 days of this order, failing which, the total sum will bear 12% interest per annum till its realization. Pronounced on this the 29th day of Jan' 2018.

MEMBER                                 MEMBER                                    PRESIDENT