MR LAXMI NARAYAN PADHI, PRESIDENT… The substance of case is that, the Complainant being allured with attractive presentation over website had placed order for a mobile through online from OP make Lenovo 2010 on dt.18.01.16 bearing its IMEI No.868518027247321 & 868518027085721 and was delivered on dated 26.01.2016 on payment of Rs.4990/-. After purchase the complainant inserted one sim for a month and when he inserts another sim the set got no response. As there is no service center at this locality except Bhubaneswar & Visakhapatnam, he tried himself through mobile setting but for no use. That after the set reported various problems like low sound, battery heating, hang etc. The complainant further alleged that, the OP.s provide him a defective set for a good price through attractive presentations and the cell not working as per its features specified in companies specifications. So the Complainant inflicted mental tension and financial losses due to the deceptive practices of OP.s. So he prayed before the Forum pleased to direct the OP.s to pay the price of alleged handset 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.s.
2. On the other hand the OP has neither appeared on call nor filed his counter in the case despite allowing times for above 90 days of its admission, hence the OP.s set ex parte as contemplated in Sec.13(2)(b) of the C.P.Act 1986, so the forum decided to proceed the case with available evidence on record. The complainant has filed copy of some documents. The complainant heard the case at length, perused the record and the submissions are considered.
3. 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.
4. Prima facie it is found that the complainant had ordered to procure the mobile set on dt.18.01.2016 and the same was delivered to him on dt.26.01.2016 on payment of Rs.4990/- and the same became defect with in valid warranty period. From the contention of complainant it is seen that, the OP-1 has provided him an inherent defective set for a good price, as thus the complainant sustained mental agony and inflicted financial losses due to the negligence and unfair practices of OP.1, hence he craves the leave of this forum and filed the instant case and prayed for compensation.
5. From the above discussions and perusing the submissions filed by the complainant, we are of the view that the alleged mobile set has some inherent defects. It is further noticed that, despite service of notice of this forum the OP.s are neither appeared before this forum nor took any initiations to settle the matter of complainant, so there is nothing doubt on the claim in absence of counter by the OP.s hence we feel that the action of OP.s is illegal, arbitrary and unfair which amounts to deficiency in service and hence especially the OP.1 found guilty under the provisions of the C.P.Act 1986, as thus the complainant is entitled for relief.
Hence, we allowed the complaint against the OP.1 with cost.
O R D E R
i. The opposite party No.1 is hereby directed to pay the price of the set Rs.4990/- (Four thousand nine hundred & ninety only) inter alia, to pay Rs.7,000/-(Rupees Seven thousand) as compensation and a sum of Rs.3000/-(Three thousand) towards the cost of litigation to the complainant, for such deceptive practices, deficiency in service and willful negligence.
iii. 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 10th day of Nov' 2016.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT, DCDRF,
NABARANGPUR.
