This is a complaint fled under section 12 of consumer protection act for an order directing the opposite parties to refund `4,200 the purchase price of mobile set along with `5000 as compensation and cost.

          The case of the complainant is that he has purchased a mobile from 2^nd opposite party made up of 3^rd opposite party for an amount of `4200 on 30.5.11 and within three months of its purchase it become defective and the same was informed to 2<sup>nd</sup> opposite party on the same day itself. The complainant entrusted the set to 1<sup>st</sup> opposite party as per the direction of 2<sup>nd</sup> opposite party. But according to 1<sup>st</sup> opposite party the mother board was broken and it was happened due to fall and hence it cannot be rectified under warranty. The 1<sup>st</sup> opposite party given a job sheet to the complainant showing  that the estimate value of repair is `500. Later on the 1^st opposite party informed to the complainant that `900 is required for repairing the set and hence the complainant taken back the set. The set became defective within three months of its purchase and is due to the manufacturing defect. So the 2^nd opposite parties 2 and 3 has shown unfair practice by selling a set having inherent defect. So the complainant is entitled to get a new set. Hence the complaint.

          In pursuance to the notice issued by the Forum 1^st opposite party appeared and filed their version. Opposite parties 2 and 3 are absent in spite of serving of proper notice and hence they were called absent and set exparte.

          The 1^st opposite party filed version denying the purchase of mobile. According to 1^st opposite party the complainant has neither purchased any goods nor availed any service from the 1^st opposite party and hence the complainant is not a consumer. So the complaint is not maintainable. The 1^st opposite party is the authorized service centre of 3^rd opposite party. The complainant approached the opposite party to repair his mobile phone and on examination it is seen that the set was tampered and physically damaged and the same was informed to the complainant. There is no guarantee or warranty for physical damage and the complainant was not ready to entrust the mobile an out of warranty basis and hence the phone was returned unrepared to the customer and the customer is not ready for repair but wants replacement. If the phone has any manufacturing defect the seller and manufacture alone are liable to replace the same.  So the 1^st opposite party is not liable to pay any amount to the complainant and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

          Upon the above contentions the following issues have been raised for consideration.

1.     Whether there is any deficiency on the side of opposite parties?

2.    Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed in

       the complaint?

3.   Relief and cost.

                    The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Exts.A1 to A3 and.

Issue No.1 to 3

          The case of the complainant is that he has purchased a mobile phone from 2^nd opposite party manufactured by 3^rd opposite party and within three months of its purchase it became defective and was entrusted to 1^st opposite party for service as per the direction of 2^nd opposite party, they are not ready to service free of cost saying that the phone has got physical damage. In order to prove his case he was examined as PW1 and documents such as bill, service job sheet and user guide etc. were produced.

          The Exts.A1 and A3 shows that the complainant has purchased a mobile phone from 2nd opposite party on 30.5.11 for `4200. Ext.A2 shows that the set became defective within three months of its purchase. According to complainant it became defective due to it s inherent manufacturing defect. The set has warranty of one year. The 1<sup>st</sup> opposite party contended that they are not liable to compensate the complainant in any way since they are only service centre. 2<sup>nd</sup> opposite party is the dealer and 3rd opposite party is the manufacturer of the set. But they were keeping away from the proceedings of the Forum. So there is no contra evidence before us. Moreover considering the circumstances and natural justice the opposite parties 2 and 3 are liable either to replace the phone or to refund the purchase price of the set. Even though the phone is defective and informed the same to them, they are not ready to replace the phone or to cure defect free of cost. So there is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties 2 and 3 by selling a defective set. So the opposite parties 2 and 3 are liable to compensate the complainant by giving back the purchase price of the set or to replace the set with a defect free one having sufficient warranty along with `1000 as cost and `1000 as compensation to the complainant and order passed accordingly. 1^st opposite party is exonerated from their liability.

                    In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the 2^nd  and 3^rd opposite parties  either to replace the set with a defect free one having sufficient warranty or to refund `4200(Rupees Four Thousand two hundred only) and `1000 (Rupees One thousand only) as compensation and `1000 (Rupees One thousand only) as cost of the proceedings to the complainant within  one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which  the complainant is entitled to execute the order as per the provisions of consumer protection Act.

                               Sd/-                        Sd/-            

                        President                     Member   

APPENDIX                              

Exhibits for the complainant

A1. Cash sale bill issued by OP

A2. Service job sheet given by 1^st  OP

A3. Nokia users guide and warranty terms and conditions.

Exhibits for the opposite party: Nil

Witness examined for the complainant

PW1.Complainnant

Witness examined for opposite parties: Nil

                                                          /forwarded by order/

                                                          Senior Superintendent

Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur.