MR LAXMI NARAYAN PADHI, PRESIDENT…         The fact of case is that, the Complainant had purchased a mobile, HTC Desire through online vide Item code no. JC219217, vide order No.6921115768 Sub order No.8969019624 bearing its IMEI No.358030062078428 on dated 25.06.2015 from OP.no.1 by paying an amount of Rs.16,325/- and the same was delivered vide invoice No.SECB28/15-16/1014 on dt.25.06.2015. After one week of purchase, the mobile reported problems like hang & low Battery backup etc. So the complainant approached the authorized service center at Berhampur but who stated that, Online shop products do not carry company warranty but agreed for upto date the software on payment of Rs.300/-, but later some days the same problem arouse with the set as it was in previous. The complainant being a petty businessman facing lot of troubles purchasing the defective and sub standard set of the OP.s, hence the Complainant inflicted highly mental tension, physical pain and financial hardship due to the sub standard set as well as inaction and deficiency service by the OP.s. So he prayed before the forum to direct the OP.s to pay the cost 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 counsel for OP.1 entered his appearance and filed counter wherein he stated nothing except evasive denials with some citations along with affidavit. The OP.2 neither appeared on call nor filed any counter despite several chances given to him since admission of the case. Hence he set ex parte as per provisions contemplated in Sec.13(2)(b) of C.P.Act.1986. The complainant has filed cash invoice of the alleged mobile, warranty card of the set. The complainant & counsel for OP.1 has been heard the case at length and perused the record.

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.         From the above contentions, it is found that the complainant has procured the mobile set on dt.25.06.2015 by paying an amount of Rs.16,325/- and the same became defect with in valid warranty period. Hence the complainant approached the authorized service centre of OP.s for necessary repair, but the OP.s neither repaired the set nor replaced it with a new one despite of several requests. Considering the evidences, submissions by both the parties, we are of the view that, the mobile set purchased by the complainant might have inherent defect, hence the OP.s failed to rectify the set. Thus the complainant sustained mental agony with the defective set, and also inflicted financial losses and valuable times due to the negligence and unfair practices of OP.s.

5.         Consumer is the purpose and most powerful motivating force of production, yet at the same time consumer is equally vulnerable segment of the whole marketing system. Attempts have been made to guard the interest of the consumer. In 1986, Government of India enacted a comprehensive legislation-Consumer Protection Act, 1986, applies to all goods and services, excluding goods for resale or for commercial purpose and services rendered free of charge and under a contract for personal service. The provisions of the Act are compensatory in nature. It covers public, private, joint and cooperative sectors.

6.         The Act enshrines the rights of the consumer such as right to safety, right to be informed, right to be heard, and right to choose, right to seek redressal and right to consumer education.

7.         The Act states that if an employee or agent of the supplier is liable in terms of the act for anything done or omitted in the course of that person’s employment or activities on behalf of their principal, the employer or principal is jointly and severally liable with that person. The section does not apply to criminal liability. This is an important codification of the common law in that both the supplier and its employees can carry equal responsibility for harm suffered by the consumer of the supplier due to the conduct of the employee. Further according to the Act a supplier of any goods or services is liable for any harm caused wholly or partly as a result of supplying any unsafe goods, a product failure, defect or hazard in any goods or inadequate instructions or warnings provided to the consumer pertaining to any hazard arising from the use of any goods, irrespective of whether the harm resulted from any negligence on the part of the producer, importer or retailer, distributor etc. The harm that the supplier and/or its employees can be liable for includes physical and consequential harm or loss and any expenses incurred as a result. Liability is imposed irrespective of whether the party is responsible or transaction executed under the act.

8.         Further, we have carefully examined the alleged mobile set and found defects. It is further noticed that, despite service of notice of this forum none of the OP.s took any initiations to settle the matter of complainant. Hence we feel that the action of OP.s is arbitrary, highhanded, illegal which amounts to deficiency in service, hence found guilty under the provisions of sec. 2(1)(g) of the C.P.Act, as thus the complainant is entitled for compensatory relief so we allowed the complaint against both the OP.s with cost.

                                                      O  R  D  E  R

i.          The opposite party no.1 & 2 severally & collaterally are hereby directed to pay the price of the defective set Rs.16,325/- (Rupees Sixteen thousand three hundred & twenty five) only inter alia, to pay Rs.15,000/-(fifteen thousand) as compensation and a sum of Rs.5000/-(Five thousand) towards the cost of litigation to the complainant, for such deceptive practices, deficiency in service and willful negligence.

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 26th day of Sept' 2016.

      Sd/-                                                                        Sd/-

MEMBER                                                       PRESIDENT, DCDRF,

                                                                          NABARANGPUR.