SRI G.K. RATH, PRESIDENT … The brief history of case is that, the complainant had procured a mobile, Samsung Model Metro-313 bearing its IMEI No.357710/08/16059815 on dated 05.05.2017 from the OP.no.3 for Rs.2000/-. But within few days of its use the mobile shows automatic switch off and after one month the mobile became completely unfunctioned. So the complainant approached the authorized service center OP.2 but he could not rectified the set but issued a job sheet to that effect dt.10.07.2017. Hence the complainant lodged a complaint before the above OP No.1 through phone requesting to replace the set but for no action taken by OP.1. Hence the Complainant harassed, inflicting great mental strain, physical pain and financial losses hence craves the leave of this forum and prayed to direct the OP.s to pay the price of alleged handset and a sum of Rs.20,000/- as compensation and cost of litigation for such unfair practice, arbitrary action, highhandedness and deficiency in service on the part of OP.s.
The counsel for complainant has filed copy of some annexure as per his list of document along with supportive affidavit.
2. The counsel for OP.No.3 entered his appearance and filed his counter in the case and averred that, the case is not maintainable as the complainant approached this forum not with clean hands. The contentions of complainant are self explanatory, false & frivolous and the complainant should put the same with strict proof. The complainant is not a consumer as the instant dispute is not a consumer dispute. He further contends that there is no deficiency in service by the OP.1, so prayed to dismiss the case with cost.
The counsel for OP.1 & complainant heard the case at length. The complainant has filed copy of some documents. Submissions considered.
3. From the above submissions, it reveals that the complainant has procured the mobile in question on dt.05.05.2017 and the same reported defect with in valid warranty period. It is seen that, the complainant time and again approached the OP.s reporting the so called defects, but the OP.s neither rectified the set nor replaced the same with a new one. Perusing the evidences, submissions by the complainant, we are of the view that, the mobile set purchased by the complainant is defective product of OP.1 and the OP.1 being the manufacturer/distributor failed to render any satisfactory service to the complainant within valid warranty period. Thus the complainant suffered mental agony with the defective set, and also inflicted financial losses and valuable times for the negligence and unfair practices of OP.s, hence he craves the leave of this forum and prayed for appropriate compensation.
4. From the above discussions and perusing the submissions filed by the complainant, it is noticed that, the OP.s despite receiving notice of this forum are failed to take any actions to satisfy the complainant and there is nothing to reject the contentions of complainant, hence we feel that the action of OP.1 is against the principles of Sale of Goods Act 1930 also arbitrary and unfair which amounts to deficiency in service hence found guilty under the provisions of the C.P.Act 1986, as thus the complainant is lawfully entitled for compensatory relief. As such the complaint is allowed against OP.no.1 with costs.
ORDER
i. The opposite party no.1 supra is hereby directed to pay the cost of the mobile set Rs.2000/- (Rupees Two thousand) inter alia, to pay Rs.2,000/-(Two thousand) as compensation and a sum of Rs.1000/-(One thousand) towards the 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 27th day of Nov' 2017.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
