Case of  complainant Neeraj Garg is that   on 19.10.2013, he  had purchased Karbonn A-37 mobile hand set  for Rs.8600/- vide invoice No. S/13-14/8815  dated 19.10.2013(Annexure C-1)  from Saugat, Saugat Complex  i.e. from opposite party No.1. After few days, the mobile hand set became out of order.  It was having touch screen  problem. Therefore, at the instance of  opposite party No.1, complainant went to the service centre i.e.  to opposite party No.2,  but opposite party No.2 demanded Rs.1850/- to repair it.  It was within period of  warranty, so said demand of Rs.1850/-  was not justified. Any how  the mobile hand set was also kept  back by the service centre. It was not returned to the complainant repaired or unrepaired;  hence, this complaint, filed on 21.1.2014,  for a direction to the opposite parties,  either  for replacement of the mobile hand set in proper working order or in alternative, for  refund of its price of  Rs.8600/- with upto date interest,  besides  damages for harassment and litigation expenses.

2.                   Opposite parties No.2 & 3 were duly proceeded ex-parte vide order of this forum dated 2.6.2014.

3.                    Opposite party No.1 filed its reply,  admitting the selling of the mobile hand set to the complainant, vide said sale invoice dated 19.10.2013 but denied rest of the case of the complainant for want of knowledge.

4.                     In order to make out his case, the complainant has placed on record Annexure C-1 copy of sale Invoice; Annexure C-2 copy of job sheet of  the service centre  and Annexure C-3 his own supporting affidavit. 

5.                There is no reason to disbelieve or to dis-credit, aforesaid pleaded case of the complainant, which gets full support and corroboration, not only from his unrebutted supporting  affidavit Annexure C-3, but also from  copy of job sheet Annexure C-2 which  shows that mobile hand set in question was taken by the  service centre,  with problem of touch panel faulty/VOC27. Opposite parties No.2 & 3 have also opted not to contest this case of the complainant, as they are ex-parte, this fact also points towards the correctness of the  case of the complainant. As above noted, selling of the mobile hand set by opposite party No.1 to the complainant,  is admitted.  It is thus very clear that a defective mobile hand set was sold to the complainant. The service centre could not  bring  it  in order,  rather on the other hand it was kept back  and the mobile hand set was not returned to the complainant repaired or unrepaired  despite  his repeated visits,  rather he was misbehaved.  It is certainly gross deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.

6.                     Resultantly, this complaint is hereby allowed, with a direction to the opposite parties, either  to replace   the mobile hand set,  in question   with the same  or with  some  higher make,   to the complainant   within a period of  15 days,  from the  date of receipt of copy of this order. Otherwise to return  its price of Rs.8600 /- to the complainant with interest  @ 10% per annum,  from  the date of  sale  dated 19.10.2013  till payment. Complainant is also hereby awarded compensation of Rs.5000/- for his harassment, mental agony etc.  and litigation expenses of Rs.1100/-, against the opposite parties, who shall be jointly and severely liable to comply the order.

7.                  However, primary responsibility to comply the order shall be of opposite party No.3 being the manufacturing company. In case compliance  of the order  is made by opposite party No.1or by opposite party No.2,   then  in that eventuality, opposite party No.1or opposite party No.2 as the case may be duly indemnified  by  opposite party No. 3  with interest @ 10% per annum.

Announced.                                               

19.01.2015