Presented by Sri G.S.Pradhan, President.<br /> The Complaint pertains to deficiency in service as envisaged under the provision of Consumer Protection Act-1986 and its brief fact is as follows:-<br /> <br /> The Complainant purchased a Sony Ericsion Mobile hand set bearing model No. W-5801 on Dt. 05/03/2008 for a sum of Rs. 12,500/-(Rupees twelve thousand five hundred)only from the Opposite Party No.1(one). The Opposite Party No.1(one) assured to give one year warranty of the said mobile which was also reflected on the money bill issued by the Opposite Party No.1(one) to the Complainant. After use of some months, the said mobile was defective and did not function which was repaired by the Opposite Party No.1(one) and delivered the same to the Complainant on Dt. 26/08/2009. The Complainant alleges that on Dt. 20/12/2008 again the said mobile set became defective and so he produced the same before the Opposite Party No.1(one) and requested to repair the defective mobile set. The Opposite Party No.1(one) neither repair the set nor take any step for repairing. Repeated request were made by the Complainant to repair the Mobile hand set but the Opposite Parties did not listen to the request of the Complainant. He has also served a pleader notice dated 7th February-2009, requesting the Opposite Parties to repair the same but the Opposite Party did not listen, hence this Complaint, alleging deficiency of service by the Opposite Parties, towards the Complainant.<br /> <br /> The Complainant prays to replace the said defective mobile handset and pay a sum of Rs.70,000/- compensation for humiliation, mental agony and business loss and Rs.2000/-(Rupees two thousand)only for litigation expenses including 12%(twelve percent) interest per annum from filing of the case till realization. <br /> <br /> In its version the Opposite Party No.1(one) denied to have cause any deficiency in service towards the Complainant so also denied the other allegation made by the Complainant.<br /> <br /> The Opposite Party No.1(one) contends that, the Opposite Party No.1(one) is a retail dealer of Mobile sets mobile accessories, and sells only mobile sets of different brand. The Opposite Party No.2(two) is the authorized service center of Sony Eriscion Mobile sets. The Complainant has neither approached this Opposite Party for any type of repair of the mobile nor done any repair of the mobile at any point of time as he is not competent or authorized for repairing. The Complainant was also informed by its reply Dt.13/02/2009 to the pleader notice that, the Opposite Party No.1(one) can manage to take steps enabling him to repair the said defective mobile set free of cost through its authorized service center, but the Complainant did not respond to the proposal of the Opposite Party No.1(one) and filed this present case alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Parties.<br /> <br /> The Opposite Party No.1(one) is not liable for any compensation as claimed in the complaint and prays for dismissal of the complaint with cost.<br /> The Opposite Party No.2(two) set ex-parte vide order Dt.08/05/2009 for his non appearance and the Complaint was heard ex-parte against Opposite Party No.2(two).<br /> <br /> Perused the complaint petition, Opposite Party's version as well as the copies of documents filed by the Parties and find as follows:-<br /> <br /> Purchase of Sony Ericsion Mobile set model No. W-5801 for a sum of Rs.12,500/-(Rupees twelve thousand five hundred)only on Dt.05/03/2008 from the Opposite Party No.1(one) and assurance of one year warranty of the said mobile hand sent which also reflected on the money bill issued by the Opposite Party No.1(one) in favour of the Complainant is not disputed by the Parties. It is evident from the copy of service card filed by the Complainant that, the said mobile hand set was defective in the display section which was changed by the Opposite Party No.2 on Dt. 26/08/2008 and delivered the set to the Complainant. The Complainant contends that after use of some months again on Dt.20/12/2008 the same set was got defective with in the warranty period. The Complainant requested the Opposite Parties several times to repair the mobile but the Opposite Party No.1(one) did not repair the same.<br /> <br /> The Opposite Party No.1(one) contends that he is only a retail dealer of mobile set of different brand. He only sells the mobile set and is not authorized to repair the same and the Opposite Party No.2(two) is the authorized service center of Sony Eriscion Mobile hand set. The Opposite Party No.2(two) is authorized and liable for any repair work.<br /> <br /> The purchaser of a mobile hand set is not supposed to known who is authorized or liable for any repair work. He only knows the dealer from whom he has purchase the set, after paying the price of the mobile hand set. The Opposite Party No.1(one) has also assured one year warranty for the said mobile set. The Mobile hand set of the Complainant got defective on Dt. 20/12/2008 with in the warranty period. The Opposite Parties are liable to give proper service as the defect occurred with in the warranty period. The Complainant being harassed from Dt. 20/12/2008, the Opposite Party No.1(one) at last on Dt.13/02/2009 gave reply to the pleader notice of the Complainant stating that, he can manage to take steps enabling the Complainant to repair the defective set free of cost through its authorized service centre. At the time of sell of the set, the Opposite Party No.1(one) has not stated to the Complainant that, the Opposite Party No.2(two) is the authorized service center of the mobile set and will repair free of cost if any defect occurred in the hand set with in the warranty period. So the Opposite Party No.1(one) the dealer can not escape from liability. In spite of several request made by the Complainant for repair of the defective mobile hand set with in the warranty period, the Opposite Parties did not repair the same is amounts to deficiency in providing service by the Opposite Parties towards the complaint.<br /> <br /> In view of above discussion, the Complainant has well established a case of deficiency in service against the Opposite Parties towards the Complainant.<br /> <br /> In the result, the Opposite Parties are jointly and severally directed to replace the defective mobile hand set model No. W-5801 by a defect free new one of same make and model after receipt of the defective hand set from the Complainant and pays a sum of Rs.2000/-(Rupees two thousand)only towards mental agony and Rs.500/-(Rupees five hundred)only as litigation cost to the Complainant within thirty day from the date of the Order failing which the amount will carry 18%(eighteen percent) interest per annum till the date of payment.<br /> <br /> Complaint allowed accordingly.