SMT. BANDANA ROY, PRESIDENT

            The gist of the complaint case is that  the OP no. 1 is a mobile producing Co., OP No. 2 is a customer care centre, OP no 3 is also an authorized service centre and OP No. 4 is the show room – holder  for selling mobile sets.  The complainant purchased a mobile set of brand Micromax Canvas A109 (IMEI No. 9193 7560-5948193/911375605963572 , a production of the OP no.1 from the show room of the OP no. 4 on 22.01.2015 with warrantee for one year. After few months on 10.08.2015 the said set stopped functioning and on the next date on 11.08.2015 the petitioner went to the shop of the OP no 4 and disclosed the problem  and as per direction of the OP no 4 he deposited the set for its proper servicing in the authorized servicing centre. 3/4 days later the petitioner went to the shop of the OP no. 4 to take report then the OP no. 4 handed him a servicing memo. dated 13.08.2-015 for servicing of the set at the centre of the OP No.3, but it is learnt that the OP no. 3 did not return the same after servicing. Till January 2016 the petitioner did not get  return of the set  from the OP no. 4 and lastly on 20.11.15 the OP no 4 drove out the petitioner from his shop without delivery of the set.  Again and again the OPs gave assurance to the petitioner for compensating the set but they lingered time and did  nothing.

Hence, the instant case with the prayers as made in the complaint petition on the allegation of deficiency of service on the part of the Ops.

Summons were served upon the OPs, OP no 4 filed written version but in spite of repeated chance no other OP filed written version. So, the case is heard ex pate against the OPs no. 1 to 3 and on contest against the OP no.4.

The specific case of the OP no. 4 is that he is only the shop keeper and deals in  mobile sets of different companies.  Before purchasing, the petitioner checked the mobile set  and warrantee card was handed over  to him on behalf of the manufacturing Co. i.e OP no.  1 and 2.  This OP contends that after few months the complainant came to his shop with the problem in the set and he advised the complainant to deposit the same in the companies’ servicing centre through him. Thereafter again and again on behalf of the complainant  the OP no. 4 made contact with the OP no. 3 for servicing of the set but unfortunately the set was not delivered to him after servicing.

So, the OP no. 4 prays for dismissal of the case against him  as  he had no liability to replace or repair the mobile set under warrantee   by the OP Nos. 1 and 2.

            Point to be considered in this case is whether the case is maintainable and (2) whether Complainant is entitled to the relief(s) sought for by the complainant.

Decision with reasons

            Both the points are taken up together for consideration for the sake of convenience.

            We have carefully perused the affidavit of the complainant, the written version of the OP No. 4 and the documents filed by both the parties and also heard the arguments advanced by ld advocates for the parties.

 The OP No. 4 candidly admitted that he is a shop keeper and sells mobile sets of different companies.  The warrantee was given by the manufacturing Co. i,e the  OP no. 1 and 2.

On perusal of the warrantee statement, in column No. 2 it is mentioned that the warrantee will  be applicable for 12 months from the date of original purchase and six months for accessories; customer should produce the proof of purchase claiming this warrantee. …

            It appears from the statement of the petitioner that the mobile set h ad been purchased on 22.01.2015 through a valid cash memo with warrantee for one year. On 10.08.2015 the mobile set stopped functioning. The OP no. 4 admitted that the petitioner brought the set before him with the aforesaid problem and he sent the set to the OP no. 3, the authorized servicing centre of the manufacturing Co. He also handed over the receipt issued by the OP no. 3. But after a long lapse of time till January 2016 the OP no. 3 did return the mobile set to the OP no. 4. So, the OP no. 4 is found not responsible in any way for the hardship faced by the  complainant. The mobile was under warrantee, as per warrantee statement, till 21.01.2016.  So it is presumed that the complainant presented the defective mobile set before the OP no. 4 for its servicing by the Co. Concerned but the authorized servicing centre of the manufacturing Co. did not  deliver the same to the OP no. 4 or to the complainant after servicing, which as per terms of the warrantee the  complainant deserved. So, we are of the considered view that the OP no 1 and 2 are responsible for replacement of the mobile set or to refund the price thereof.

The OP no. 1 or 2 did not appear to counter the claim of the complainant regarding the conditions of the warrantee given by them. The OP no.4 also did not say anything contrary to dispute the prayer of the complainant.

In view of the aforesaid discussion we are of the opinion that the complaint case succeeds and the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for.

Both the points are answered accordingly in favor of the complainant.

            Hence, it is

O R D E R E D

That CC/497 of 2017 be and the same is allowed  ex parte  against  the Opposite parties No 1 to 3 and dismissed on contest against the OP no. 4.

The OP no.  1 to 3 are hereby directed to replace the mobile set  of the complainant or to refund Rs. 8000/- with 10% interest  per annum thereto  to the complainant within one month from the date of this order i.d they will be liable to pay interest @ Rs 10% per annum on the above amount till full satisfaction of the same. The OP no. 1 to 3 are further directed to give compensation of Rs 5000/- for harassment of the complainant and Rs. 5000/- towards litigation cost to the complainant within the same stipulated time.

The OP no. 4, is however found not responsible in any manner for the loss/harassment of the complainant in respect of the defective mobile set.

Let copy of the judgment be supplied to all the parties free of cost.