Adv.for the complainant - Self

          Adv.for the O.P-1 -   Sri J.K.Sahu

         Adv.for the O.P-2   -   Self

                                   Date of filing of the case –18.10.2016

                                                                                               Date of order                   -  12.07.2017

               ORDER

Sri A.K.Purohit, PRESIDENT

1.            The case of the complainant is that, he had purchased a lawa lnis pro 30+ phone from vandana Digital for a consideration of Rs.12,000.90p on dt.06.09.2014 after use of few month the complainant found defect in the battery of the phone, to which the complainant approached the service center for its repair, but since the battery is not available in the lava store, the complainant was devied service . Hence the complainant.

2              Although notice was served on O.P. No:2 neither he appears nor filed any version . O.P. No:1 contested the case by filing his written version. The O.P. No:1 denied the complainant’s allegation & submitted that, vandana Digital who is a necessary party has not been added as a party  and hence the case is bad for non- joinder of necessary party.

3              The Complainant  & Op2 are absent on the date of hearing. Heard the O.P. No:1 . perused the pleadings & material available on record. In support of his case the complainant filed the Xerox copy of retail invoice issued by the vandana Digital . Perused the said. Retail invoice . It is seen that, the complainant had purchased lava Iris  pro 30+ Mobile phone for a consideration of Rs.12,000.90p on dt. 06.09.2014 vide retail invoice No:1653 dt.06.09.2014 . Therefore the complainant is a consumer. The O.P. No:1 is the manufacturer of the said Mobile phone & O.P. No: 2 is the care center for the said company . In his complainant petition the complainant has specifically pleaded that there is defect in the battery of the mobile phone which has not been replaced by the O.P. due to non- availability of the same. This pleading is supported by an affidavit  and to this  no rebuttal affidavit evidence has been filed by the O.P. The O.Ps have also not filed any evidence to show that, there is no defect in the battery and they provided service to the complainant . Therefore it is believed that , there is defect in the battery of the complainant’s phone . When there is defect in the battery , the mobile phone is of no use. It is the duty of the O.Ps to provide service to the complainant . It is seen from the complainant petition that, the battery is not available in the lava store , and hence issue of a direction for replacement of the battery is meaningless as prayed for by the complainant . Hence in my opinion issue of a direction for refund of the price will meet the ends  of justice. It is also seen from the record that, due to the defect in the battery the complainant not able to use the  phone and sufficiently harassed by moving to the OPs several time and hence he is entitled to compensation.  

                                                             ORDER

The O.Ps are directed to pay rs.12000 .90p ( Twelve thousands & ninety paisa) to the complainant after receipt of the defective lava iris pro 30+ phone from the  complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order. Further the O.Ps are directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant towards compensation & cost within the said period, filing which the entire amount shall carry an interest @ 8% P.A.  till  payment.

ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN FORUM THIS THE   12^TH   DAY OF   JULY’2017. 

 (S.Rath)                                       (G.K.Rath)                                                          (A.K.Purohit) 

 MEMBER.                                    MEMBER.                                                           PRESIDENT.