SHRI A.P.MUND, PRESIDENT:  Complainant Pramod Kumar Mahapatra has filed this case against Amazon In, Bangalore (O.P.No.1), Mobile Care, Jeypore(O.P.No.2) and Micromax Informatics Gurgaon, Haryana(O.P.No.3)  alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
    2. Brief fact of the case is that, the complainant is a permanent resident of Sambalpur town, serving in HAL Sunabeda and he purchased a cell phone of Micromax Canvas 2.2 Ally (Black)                                             
X00081XHLL,IMEI-911343504515422, Serial No.Lithiumlon at a cost of Rs.8,195/- on dated.09.07.2014 from the shop of O.P.no.1 which was received on online marketing dealer vide Invoice No.KA-BLRS-132564071-23566 with one year warranty.
    3. The complainant got problem after four months of use, within the warranty period. He complained at the Service Centre (O.P.No.2) and on the instruction of O.P.No.2, he paid Rs.250/- on dt.03.12.2014 and he was asked to take the set after seven days. After seven days, when he went to the Service Centre for the aforesaid set, O.P.No.2 told him that the set need some more repairing and O.P.No.2 again issued a job sheet on dt.05.01.2015 and asked him to come after seven days.
    4. Thereafter the complainant went to O.P.No.2 to get his mobile set, but he found the same problem of the set. Then the complainant requested to replace the defective set with a new one. O.P.No.2 expressed his inability to do so and told the complainant to send the said mobile to Bhubaneswar where engineers of Micromax Company are working He tried to get back the repaired mobile set from the company, but in vain. Hence this case. Prayer of the complainant to this Forum is to give direction to the O.Ps:
(1) To get back his defective mobile set replaced with a new set.
(2) To pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment due to deficiency 
In service.
(3) To pay Rs.5,000/- towards cost of the proceeding.

    Documents filed by the complainant are Xerox copies of:
Invoice/Cash Memo dated.09.7.2014 for Rs.8,195/- (2) Invoiced No.4 dt.03.12.2014 for Rs.350/-
Job sheet dt.05.01.2015
5. Show cause notice sent by this Forum to all the O.Ps to appear before this Forum and defend 
themselves. But they have neither taken any step nor filed their written version. So, they were set ex-parte.
    6. We heard the learned counsel on behalf of the complainant and perused the materials in record. Coming to the merits of the case, it is clear from the aforesaid circumstances that the mobile set was for a consideration and within the warranty period, defects found by the complainant. The manufacturer through its Authorized Service Centre failed to repair the defective hand set. That the set could not be repaired to the satisfaction of the complainant indicates that, the set had some inbuilt manufacturing defects. So, the O.Ps are guilty of selling a defective mobile set.
                                            
    7. In view of the facts and circumstances discussed above, it can be concluded that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the O.Ps. But as no part of action arises within the jurisdiction of this Forum, the complainant is advised to take back the case and file the case in proper Forum having jurisdiction. The time spent in litigating before this Forum may not be taken into consideration for calculating the limitation period. In the result the complaint petition is hereby dismissed being not maintainable.