MR LAXMI NARAYAN PADHI, PRESIDENT…              The factual matrix of case is that, the Complainant had purchased a mobile cell, Micromax Canvas Juice-3 bearing it's IMEI No. 911438650041064 & 911438650081110, on dated 31.10.2015 from OP.no.1 by paying an amount of Rs.9000/- and got cash receipt along with warranty card etc. But on just Seven days of its purchase, the said mobile appeared defects like overheating and automatic switch off. So the complainant approached personally the OP.1 and authorized service center OP No.2 on dt.23.11.2015 but the OP.2 said that the mobile has some problem which will take 10 to 20 days for repair and issued a job card vide no.E010217-1115-20404705. Later on dt.05.01.16 the complainant approached the OP.2 but who again said to wait for another 15 days. The complainant also approached the OP.3 through phone, but the customer care officials did not pay any heed to his complaint except false assurances. The complainant time and again approached the OP.s to redress the matter but all his requests are in vain thereof. The complainant highly depends on his mobile but he refrained from its use due to such inaction of OP.s. Hence the Complainant inflicted mental tension and financial losses. So he prayed before the Forum to direct the OP.s to pay the a sum of Rs.30,000/- as compensation and cost of litigation for such unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of OP.s.

2.         On the other hand the counsel for OP.2 entered his appearance and file counter in the case and averred that, it is fact that the complainant had approached the OP.2 on dt.23.11.15 requesting to repair or replace the set. As the cell was within valid warranty period he has mend the alleged set of the complainant. At the time of hearing he contended that the mobile set was a problem of low battery backup, but he replacing its battery repaired the set, then he approached the complainant several times through phone to take back his mobile but in the meanwhile the complainant lodged the instant case against and never came to recollect his mobile. He further submitted that, the OP.2 being an educated unemployed preferred to adopt the service center of Micromax for his livelihood and he is not responsible for any inherent defect of any product. He further contended that, it is not possible on his part to replace a new mobile for a defective one. As the OP.no.2 performed his duty as per Company’s provision, there is no deficiency in service on his part. Hence he prayed before the forum to dismiss the case in the limine.

3.         In spite of several chances the OP.1 & 3 neither appeared nor filed any counter in the case. Hence they set ex parte as envisaged in Sec.13(2)(b) of the C.P.Act.1986. The OP.no.2 has submitted the alleged mobile set before the forum for necessary perusal. The complainant has filed cash invoice of the alleged mobile along with warranty card and service job sheet of the set. The complainant & OP.2 heard the case minutely at length, perused the record and submissions considered.

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 is found that the complainant has procured the mobile set on dt.31.10.2015 and the same became defect with in valid warranty period. As per terms of warranty, the complainant approached the OP.s for necessary repair averring the alleged troubles, but the OP.s neither could mend the set nor replaced the same with a new one despite of several requests. As thus the complainant suffered mental agony, and also inflicted financial losses and valuable times due to the negligence and unfair practices of OP.s, hence he under compulsion craves the leave of this forum and prayed for compensation.

6.         From the above discussions and perusing the submissions filed by the complainant and OP.no.2, we have carefully verified the alleged mobile set and found defects. It is further noticed that, the OP.no.3, despite complaints made by the complainant and also in spite of receiving notice of this forum is failed to take any initiations to settle the matter of complainant and there is nothing to unbelief the contentions of complainant without filing counter and evidences by the OP.3, hence we feel that the action of OP.3 is illegal, unfair and denunciations to the law of the land which amounts to deficiency in service and found guilty under the provisions of the C.P.Act 1986, hence the complainant is 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.9000/- (Nine thousand) inter alia, to pay Rs.10,000/-(Ten 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 on 28th of April' 2016.

       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.