MR LAXMI NARAYAN PADHI, PRESIDENT… The substance of complaint in brief is that, the complainant had purchased a Mobile set Make Micromax A-065, bearing IMEI No.911370258472559/ 911370258674550 on dated 11/02/2015 from the OP.1 by paying an amount of Rs.3,500/-. After purchase and use of just 3 months, within valid warranty period, the said mobile hand set became defect like switch off automatically & battery overheating etc. Hence the complainant approached the OP.1 on dt.20.08.15 but for no use. Thereafter the complainant approached the OP.2 but who refused to redeem the set. Hence the complainant further approached the OP.1 and requested to replace the defective mobile with a new one, but he denied the same and said that the mobile has some inherent defect hence advised to contact the manufacturer company to replace the same. As thus the complainant contact the OP.3 requesting to replace the set with a new one but for no action thereof. So the complainant submitted that despite persuasions within valid warranty period, the OP.s did not redress his claim, hence he sustained losses and harassed a lot due to the inaction of OP.s which is illegal and deficiency in service, hence he inflicted great humility, financial hardship & mental agony which could not be evaluated in terms of money. So he prayed before the Forum to direct the OP.s to pay the price of said handset, along with a cost of Rs.20,000/- as compensation and Rs.10,000/- as cost of the litigation for such negligence and deficiency in service by the OP.s
2. On the other hand, the counsel for OP.3 is appeared and filed his counter, wherein he except evasive denials could not prove anything contradiction to the complaint. The complainant has filed original retail invoice of the alleged mobile set, and warranty papers etc. The counsel for OP and complainant minutely heard the case at length and perused the records.
3. From the above submissions, it is found that the complainant has procured the mobile set on dt.11.02.2015 and the same became defect with in valid warranty period. As per the specifications of service warranty conditions, the complainant approached the OP.s for necessary repair showing the above said troubles, but the OP.s neither redeemed the set through their service center nor replaced the set with a new one. Considering the evidences, submissions by the complainant, we feel that, the mobile set purchased by the complainant has manufacturing defect and the OP.s failed to provide any service to it. Hence the complainant suffering under mental tension with the defective set, inflicted financial losses and valuable times, under compelling circumstances file the instant case.
4. From the above facts and on perusal of submissions filed by the complainant, we are of the view that the alleged set has manufacture defect and the OP.s despite receiving notice of this forum are failed to render service to the present complainant and there is nothing to unbelief with the contentions of complainant. As thus we feel that the action of OP is illegal, arbitrary, unscrupulous and unfair which amounts to deficiency in service and the complainant is entitled for relief.
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 i.e. Rs.3,500/- (Three thousand & Five hundred) in place of alleged defective mobile, inter alia to pay Rs.6,000/-(Six thousand) as compensation and a sum of Rs.2000/-(Two 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 this the 30th day of Jan'2016.
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.
