MR LAXMI NARAYAN PADHI, PRESIDENT…           The substance of case is that, the Complainant had purchased a mobile, make Intex Aqua Power on dated 27.01.2016 from OP.no.1 by paying an amount of Rs.6700/-. But after 08 days of its use, the mobile reported hang, display problem and automatic switch on etc. So the complainant approached the OP.1 who replaced a same new one on dt.05.02.16 by taking Re.01/- only from the complainant with its IMEI No.911428653850850 and issued cash receipt for the same. The new set again became appears same problems in the month of July’16. So the complainant approached the authorized service center OP No.2 on 04.07.16 for repair, to which the OP-2 demanded Rs.3200/- for its repair, but the complainant urged him about warranty but the OP.2 simply denied to its repair. The complainant further submitted that, he being a professional mass media communicator fully depends on the mobile for his profession but he refrained to facilitate the same due to such a poor deportment of OP.s. So the Complainant inflicted mental tension, physical injury and financial hardship. So he prayed before the Forum to direct the OP.s to pay the cost of alleged handset and a sum of Rs.50,000/- 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.s neither appeared on call nor filed any counter despite several chances given to them since admission of the case. Hence they set ex parte as provisions contemplated in Sec.13(2)(b) of C.P.Act.1986. The complainant has filed copy of cash invoice of the alleged mobile, service job sheet of OP.no.2 and warranty card of the set. The complainant heard the case and perused the record.

3.         From the above transactions, it is found that the complainant has procured the mobile set on dt.05.02.2016 by paying an amount of Rs.6700/- and the same became defect within its valid warranty period. As per conditions of warranty, the complainant approached the OP.s for repair, but the OP.s neither mend the set nor pays its price despite of several requests. Considering the evidences, submissions by the complainant, we are of the view that, the mobile set purchased by the complainant has internal defect, but despite repeated requests 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, hence he craves the leave of this forum and filed the instant case and prayed for compensation.

4.         From the above discussions and perusing the submissions by the complainant, it is noticed that, in spite of service of notice, the OP.s neither appears nor taken any actions to settle the matter of complainant, hence we feel that the action of OP.s is illegal and unfair which amounts to deficiency in service, hence found guilty under the Act, as thus the complainant is entitled for compensatory relief. So we allowed the complaint against the OP.no.2 & 3 with cost.

                                                        O  R  D  E  R

i.          The opposite party no.2 & 3 supra are severally and collaterally directed to pay the price of the set Rs.6700/- (Six thousand & Seven hundred) only in place of the defective alleged set, inter alia, to pay Rs.3,000/-(Three thousand) as compensation and a sum of Rs.2000/-(Two 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 complainant reserves liberty to file execution in the case. Pronounced on 30th day of Dec' 2016.

     Sd/-                                    Sd/-                                          Sd/-

MEMBER                        MEMBER                        PRESIDENT, DCDRF,

                                                                                        NABARANGPUR