MR LAXMI NARAYAN PADHI, PRESIDENT…         The factual matrix of the complaint is that, the Complainant has procured a Mobile set Make Gionee E-7 bearing IMEI No.862583026332892 on dated 11/09/2014 from O.P.No-01 by paying an amount of Rs.35,000/-. After purchase of just one month of it’s use the said mobile hand set shows problems like hang and automatically shutdown. The complainant being aggrieved approached the OP.2 for necessary repair who updated the software and handover it to the complainant. Later two months, the said set has been shown various problems like hang, network problem, automatic switch on/off & other software problems. The complainant finally on 31.12.2014 approached the OP.2 and obtained the Job sheet by depositing the defective set to rectify the defects. But the OP No.2 just clear the software and returned back the set without rectifying the defect and saying that the set has some serious problem and advised the complainant to contact the company i.e. OP.3, thus later the complainant contact the OP.no.3 through telephone but for no result. Later the complainant time and again requested the OP.2 & 3 to replace the set or pay the price but all the requests were in vain. The complainant being a legal practitioner purchased the mobile set by paying high price to get ultra benefits but refrained to get the same, so he inflicted to mental agony, financial losses and physical discomfort. So the complainant alleged that, there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP.s. Hence he prayed before the forum to direct the OP.s to pay the price of the mobile set and allow compensation and cost of Rs.50,000/- for his losses.

2.         On the other hand the OP.1, 2 & 3 neither appeared nor filed any counter in spite of chances given to them in above three months of its admission. Hence the OP.s set ex parte as contemplated in Sec.13 (2)(b) of the C.P.Act.1986. The complainant alone heard at length and perused the records.

            The consumer protection act is a socio economic beneficial law, intended for speedy delivery of justice to the aggrieved 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.

3.         It reveals from the record that, the complainant has filed copy of retail invoice of OP.no.1 vide no.2339 dt.11.09.2014, copy of service job sheet of OP.2 dt.31.12.14 & warranty paper of the said mobile.

4.         From the above evidences it is found that the complainant has purchased the mobile set on dt.11.09.2014 and the same became defect with in valid warranty period. As per the service warranty conditions the complainant handed over the defective set to the OP.s for necessary repair showing hang, internet problems & other software problems, but neither of the OP.s repaired the set through their service center nor replaced the set with a new one and expressed that they are unable to repair the set as the set has some serious problems and hand over the set to the complainant in same condition who received the same on protests. The complainant filed copy of retail invoice and service job sheet issued by the OP.no.1 & 2. Considering the evidences, submissions by the complainant, we feel that, the mobile set procured by the complainant has some serious problems and after all efforts by the OP.2 the set could not rectified and became useless. Hence the complainant being a legal practitioner going through mental agony with the defective set, and also inflicted financial losses and filed this complaint under compulsion. 

5.         From the above discussions and perusing the documents filed by the complainant we are of the view that the alleged set of the complainant has some manufacture defect and the OP.s despite receiving notice from this forum are failed to render service to the present complainant. The action of OP.s in the total transaction is highhanded, arbitrary, null and void and the OP.s violate the terms and conditions of contract Act. So there is gross negligence and deficiency in service on the part of OP.s and the complainant is entitled for relief.

            Hence the complaint is allowed against the OP.no.2 & 3 with costs.

                                                 O  R  D  E  R

i.          The opposite party no.2 & 3 supra are hereby directed to pay the price of the set i.e. Rs.35,000/- (Thirty five thousand) inter alia to pay Rs.10,000/-(Ten thousand) as compensation and a sum of Rs.3000/-(three 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 carry 12% interest per annum till its realization.

            Pronounced in the open forum on 2nd day of April’2015.

 Sd/-                                    Sd/-                                    Sd/-

MEMBER                    MEMBER                    PRESIDENT, DCDRF,

                                                                                NABARANGPUR.

Date of Preparation: 

Date of dispatch      :  

Date of received by                                                           

the A/A for Ops / Complainant  :

Initial of the dispatcher.