1.                     The brief facts of the case of the complainant are that he purchased a LAVA Pixel VI handset bearing IMEI No.922452551011381 from OP.1 vide Invoice No.1361 dt.03.12.2015 for Rs.10, 300/- but after few months of its use the complainant found hang problem in the set along with other application problems for which he handed over the set to OP.2 (ASC) on 10.6.2016.  The OP.2 repaired the set and issued job sheet.  After 2 months, the hang problem returned, contacts automatically deleted, camera defective besides network problem.  Again the set was auto switched off.  The complainant handed over the set to OP.2 for the above problems.  The OP.2 received the set and issued job sheet dt.22.8.16.  The complainant submits that in spite of repairs, the handset is not working.  Thus alleging defective goods he filed this case praying the Forum to direct the Ops either to supply a new handset or to refund the costs thereof and to pay Rs.18, 000/- towards compensation and costs to the complainant.

2.                     The Ops 1 & 2 in spite of valid notice neither filed counter nor participated in the proceeding in any manner.  The OP.3 filed counter through its A/R denying the allegations of the complainant and contended that the complainant has not pleaded manufacturer as necessary party to this case, since the OP.3 is the administrative office of the Company.  It is further contended that the complainant has not furnished any expert report regarding defect in the handset and hence this case is not maintainable.  With these contentions denying any fault on its part, the Op prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.

3.                     The complainant has filed certain documents in support of his case.  Heard from the A/R for the complainant in absence of OP.3 and perused the materials on record.

4.                     In this case purchase of handset is supported by retail invoice dt.03.12.2015 issued by OP.1.  The complainant stated that after few months of purchase the set started hanging and he approached the ASC for repair.  In support of his contention the complainant has filed copy of service job sheet dt.10.6.2016 issued by OP.2.  The job sheet shows that the handset suffers hang problem.  According to the complainant, the handset was repaired by ASC this time but after 2 months of repair the hang problem returned along with few other problems like set auto switch off, camera problem etc.  The complainant has filed copy of service job sheet dt.22.8.2016 which discloses that the set was suffering hang problem in spite of repairs.  The ASC found auto switch off, contacts delete problem and camera problem and network problem in the set.  After repair, the ASC returned the set to the complainant on 08.09.2016.  The case of the complainant is that after repeated repairs, the handset was not working and hence he filed this case.

5.                     It is seen from the record that the handset has been repaired by the ASC two times but day by day the handset suffers multiple defects and after repairs the defects returned.  There was no allegation about any physical damage or misuse of the set.  The OP.3 in his counter stated that the complainant has not filed any expert report in support of his allegations.  This contention of OP.3 sounds bad as because the ASC of the Company is armed with experts.  When the ASC says that the problems in the handset repeat after repairs, we do not think it proper to call for further expert report from the complainant.  Further the OP.3 stated that he is the administrative office of the manufacturer and as the manufacturer has not been added as party, this case is liable to be dismissed.  If this is so, the OP.3 should quote the address of the Company in his counter.  As per address written in the cover of the handset, the complainant has filed this case and hence we feel the complainant has not made any mistake by adding the OP.3 as the party to this case.

6.                     In view of the above facts, it can be concluded that the set of the complainant has got manufacturing defect and it could not be brought into order in spite of repairs by the ASC of the Company.  Hence the complainant is entitled to get back the cost of the handset with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing of this case.  Further with the defective handset, the complainant must have suffered some mental agony and has filed this case incurring some expenditure.  Considering the sufferings, we feel a sum of Rs.2000/- towards compensation and costs in favour of the complainant will be just and proper.

7.                     Hence ordered that the complaint petition is allowed in part and the OP.3 is directed to refund Rs.10, 300/- towards cost of the handset with interest @ 12% p.a. from 23.11.2016 in lieu of defective set and to pay Rs.2000/- towards compensation and costs to the complainant within 30 days from the date of communication of this order.

(to dict.)