Complainant files hazira.

                                  The Case is taken up for  passing ex-parte order. Facts of the case in brief is that the complainant purchased a mobile handset being model no Lava Iris 454 IMEA No 911300500322922 and 911300500322930 from O.P no 3 mobile café at a price of Rs 8000/-.The O.P No 1 is the manufacturer of the mobile phone  and  O.P No 2 is the service centre of O.P No 1 at Siliguri. Few days after purchase ,the cell phone started showing multiple defects. The complainant visited the O.P No 2 and a minor repair was done but no positive steps were taken by O.P No 2 and the problem of constant shaking of  the LCD display/screen  and unclear sound while calling was persisted. The complainant took the phone to the service centre where the cell phone was service and handed over to the complainant. On 28/04/2014 she took the cell phone again to the service centre but the service centre declined to repair the cell phone as the warranty period was over and mentioned in the worksheet that H/F connection broken and headphone pin was broken. Thereafter the complainant expressed her grievance to OP No 1 and authorized Service provider in writing on 09/05/2014 but the Ops did not send any reply , hence this case.

                               In this case notice was duly served upon OP No1,2 and 3 but they neither appeared nor contested the case , accordingly the  case is taken up today for ex-parte hearing.

                              Perused the examination in chief and the supported documents filed on the side of the complainant. This is the case of the complainant that  few days after purchase the mobile handset started showing multiple defects and on preliminary consultation with people she found that it was a manufacturing defect, accordingly complainant visited  to the O.P No 2 who did minor repair of the  mobile set but failed to take any positive step to solve the defect permanently. But in this regard no paper or document is submitted on the side of the complainant to show that there was any manufacturing defect of the mobile in question since the very inception of purchase.

Complainant filed a carbon copy of receipt dated 28/04/2014 issued by OP no.2, authorized service centre, wherefrom we find that the condition of handset was showing headphone connection broken which may occur due to mishandling of the mobile phone. The receipt dated 28.4.2014 clearly shows that the complainant  used the phone for almost one year and thereafter she sent  the mobile phone to O.P No 2 for service and received the phone on 28/04/2015 after necessary service done by the O.P No 2. Now  the complainant  wants for replacement of the mobile phone or refund of money  after expiry of warranty period which cannot be entertained . So, at this stage complainant is not entitled to get any relief  as prayed for and the case is liable to be dismissed.

 Hence, it is

                                      O R D E R E D

That the  Consumer case No. 101/s/2014 be and the same is dismissed exparte without cost against Op no.1, 2& 3.