MR LAXMI NARAYAN PADHI, PRESIDENT…              The factual matrix of case is that, the Complainant, had purchased a mobile, Samsung Model G-7102 bearing its IMEI No. 353202069087018, on dated 22.06.2015 from OP.no.1 by paying Rs.13,500/- and obtained cash receipt along with warranty card etc. The mobile also insured with Samsung Company which is tie up with New India Assurance Co. Ltd and the complainant also paid premium to that effect at the time of purchase. That on dt.25.09.2015, the said mobile got external damage due to fall from her hand, hence the complainant approached the OP.no.2 as well as the New India assurance Co. Ltd for the reimbursement of the damage and for which act after a long period the OP.no.2 mend the damaged set claiming assured amount from the concerned Insurance Co and handover the set to the complainant. But after few days of its use the mobile appears some problems like hang while calling, applications not responding and the cell not working as per its features specified in its prospectus. So the complainant approached the authorized service center OP No.2 for several times but who except updating software did nothing for rectifications and issued a job sheet dt.25.4.2016. Being aggrieved the complainant approached the OP.2 and requests him to replace the set with a new one, but the service engineers said that the set has some serious manufacture problems which could not be rectify by them and advised the complainant to contact the OP.3. As per advice of OP.2, the complainant approached the customer care of OP.3 through their toll free number i.e. 180030008282 on dt.30.04.16 at about 11.56 A.M. and requested to mend or replace the set with a new one, but the customer care officials did nothing except false assurances and issued a Ref.No.8478269163 to that effect. The complainant time and again approached the OP.s to redress the matter but all the requests were in vain thereof.

2.         The complainant highly depends on her mobile but she refrained from its use due to the non response of OP.s. Hence she inflicted with mental tension, physical injury and financial hardship. So she prayed before the Forum to direct the OP.s to pay the price of alleged handset and a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation for such unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of OP.s.

3.         The OP.s neither appeared nor filed any counter in the case despite several chances given to them within its admission. Hence the OP.s set ex parte as per provisions of C.P.Act.1986. The complainant has filed 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.

4.         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.

5.         From the above submissions, it reveals that the complainant has procured the mobile in question on dt.22.06.2015 and the same became defect with in warranty. It is seen that, the complainant time and again approached the OP.s for repair averring the alleged defects, but the OP.s neither rectified the set nor replaced the same with a new one 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 inherent defect and the OP.s failed to render 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 she craves the leave of this forum and prayed for compensation.

6.         From the above discussions and perusing the submissions filed by the complainant, we have carefully examined the alleged mobile set and found defects in its software. It is further noticed that, the OP.s despite receiving notice of this forum are failed to take any initiations to settle the matter of complainant and there is nothing unbelievable the contentions of complainant without filing submission, counter and evidences by the OP.s, hence we feel that the action of OP is illegal, unscrupulous 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. So the complaint is allowed against the 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.13,500/- (Thirteen thousand & Five hundred) 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 26th day of July' 2016.

           Sd/-                                                           Sd/-

    MEMBER                                        PRESIDENT, DCDRF,

                                                                 NABARANGPUR.