SRI G.K.RATH, PRESIDENT….    The brief fact of case is that the complainant had purchased a mobile handset xiami Redmi35 prime gold vide invoice No.1479974696284376630, invoice date 24.11.2016 , order No.5161124224508435 for Rs.8999/- from OP No.3. After few days of its use the handset became switch off automatically, speaker worked one sided, for which he approached OP No.2 having warranty period. On approach, OP No.2 received the handset and issued Job Sheet dated 17.8.2017 vide No. 4066/1344 with a remark “Mic Problem” as reported by the customer and showed his inability to repair.

            The complainant made a complaint to OP No.1through its customer care unit regarding this problem but he did not hear the grievance of the complainant.

            Thus alleging defect in handset and deficiency in service, the complainant filed this case praying the Forum to direct the OPs to refund the cost of the handset and to pay Rs.10,000/- towards compensation and Rs.10,000/- towards litigation cost.

            The OP No.1 and 2 neither preferred to file any counter nor participated in the proceeding after sufficient opportunities were given to them. Only OP No.3 appeared through his A/A and filed counter. In this case we heard from the complainant in presence of A/A for OP No.3 and perused the material available on record.

            In this case, the purchase of the handset by the complainant from OP No.1 is an admitted fact. It is also evident from the job sheet on 17.8.2017 vide No.4066/1344 issued by OP No.2 that there was fault in the mic of the handset within the warranty period.

            The complainant had handed over the handset to OP No.2 for repair the fault but the OP No.2 showed its inability to repair the fault. As per the contention of the complainant, when he made a complaint through customer care unit regarding this problem, the OP No.1 did not take any action to solve the problem for which the complainant under compulsion file this case. In absence of counter and participation of OP No.1 and 2 in the proceeding, the allegation of complainant remained unchallenged.

            Perusing the materials available in record, it is found that the complainant has purchased the handset from OP No.1 and not through OP No.3. There is also no such materials or evidence on record  The handset was defective and that the OP No.1 did not respond or to make any efforts to rectify the defect and he did not show any evidence that he had made so any efforts to rectify the defects in the handset.

            The handset was defective on the basis of evidence produced by the complainant i.e., the job sheet issued by the service center where the fault of the handset was clearly indicating as mic problem.

            We finally come into a conclusion that the complainant purchased a new handset in order to have the convenience of no early repairs or defects.

            If the consumer is unhappy and put to mental agony and expenses, in such situation, manufacturer has to compensate adequately.

             It is further observed that in these modern days life is very busy, it is not possible for a busy person to take the defective handset time to time and again and again for repairing every other day.

            As such we have finally inclined to allow the allegation of complainant. In our opinion non repair/replacement of the defective handset within the warranty period by the OPs amounts to deficiency in service.

            Therefore the complainant is entitled for the refund of the cost of the alleged handset in place of the defective handset as the handset is within the valid warranty period.

            Further the complainant must have felt some difficulties resulting mental agony and due to said reason, he has file this case incurring some expenditure for which the complainant is entitled for some compensation and cost. Considering the suffering of the complainant, we feel a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards compensation and Rs.3,000/- towards cost will meet the ends of justice. As thus we allowed the complaint against the OP.no.1 with cost.

                                                                        ORDER

            Hence ordered that the complaint petition filed by the complainant is allowed in part   and OP No.1 being liable is directed to refund the cost of the handset to the complainant in place of the defective alleged handset and to pay a compensation of Rs.5,000/- and Rs.3,000/- as cost of litigation to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the awarded amount shall carry an interest @12 % p.a till its realization.

MEMBER                                   MEMBER                                PRESIDENT

Memo No.______________DF                       Dt.______________________

Copy to the Parties concerned.

                                                                                         PRESIDENT, DCDRF,

                                                                                              NABARANGPUR