MR LAXMI NARAYAN PADHI, PRESIDENT…                    The factual matrix of case is that, the Complainant, had purchased a mobile, Samsung Model A-7 bearing its IMEI No.359926060674242, on dated 08.12.2015 from the OP.no.1 for Rs.25,000/-. But within 04 months and in valid warranty period the mobile shows hang while calling, display not working well, overheating and charging not well etc. So the complainant approached the authorized service center situated at Jeypore Dist of Koraput for 3 times within the month of March & April'16 but he neither repaired the set nor issued any job sheet to that effect. Hence the complainant further approached the above OP No.2 on dt.23.07.2016, though he tried his best to mend the set by updating its software etc but he failed to rectify the defects as averred and issued a job sheet dt.23.07.2016 thereof. Being aggrieved the complainant approached the OP.3 requesting to replace the alleged set with a new one through their toll free number i.e.180030008282 on the same day at about 06.30 P.M., but the OP.3 delivered nothing except false advises with a Ref.No.A442566074. Hence finding no other way under compulsion the complainant purchased another mobile set by paying Rs.8,000/-. The complainant procured the set from his hard earned long corpus money being allured with great features but he refrained to get its facilities due to substandard and willful negligence action of OP.s. Hence the Complainant inflicted great mental strain, physical pain and financial losses. So he prayed before the us to direct the OP.s to pay the price of alleged handset and a sum of Rs.40,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation for such unfair trade practice, arbitrary action, highhandedness and deficiency in service on the part of OP.s.

2.        The counsel for OP.3 though appeared but failed to file any counter in the case despite allowing adequate chances in its admission. Hence the OP.s set ex parte as per provisions envisaged in C.P.Act.1986. The complainant has filed cash invoice of the alleged mobile, service job sheet of OP.2, affidavit and warranty card of the set. The counsel for OP.3 & complainant together minutely heard the case 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 submissions, it reveals that the complainant has procured the mobile in question on dt.08.12.2015 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 it with a new one despite of several requests. Perusing the evidences, submissions by the complainant, we are of the view that, the mobile set purchased by the complainant has inherent defect and the OP.s failed to render any satisfactory service to the complainant within warranty period. Thus the complainant suffered from 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 prayed for legitimate compensation.

5.        From the above discussions and perusing the submissions filed by the complainant, we have carefully verified the mobile in question and found internal defects. It is further noticed that, the OP.s despite receiving notice of this forum are failed to take any actions to settle the matter of complainant and there is nothing doubt in the contentions of complainant without filing submission, counter and evidences by the OP.s, hence we feel that the action of OP.3 is illegal, highhanded, arbitrary and unfair which amounts to deficiency in service and found guilty under the provisions of the C.P.Act 1986, hence the complainant is lawfully entitled for relief. Thus the complaint is allowed against OP.no.3 with costs.                                  

                                                       O  R  D  E  R

i.         The opposite party no.3 supra is hereby directed to pay the price of the set Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) 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.

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 19th day of Oct' 2016.

            Sd/-                                                              Sd/-

    MEMBER                                           PRESIDENT, DCDRF,

                                                                     NABARANGPUR.