The Complainant has filed this case alleging deficiency-in-service by the O.Ps, where O.P No.1 is Doshi Sales and Service, Being represented by its Owner-cum-the Proprietor, Vivekananda Marg, Balasore, O.P No.2 is Micromax Informatics Limited, Represented through its Managing Director, New Delhi, O.P No.3 is the Customer Care Officer, Micromax Informatics Limited, Haryana and O.P No.4 is M/s. Shyama Mobile, Represented by its Owner-cum-the Proprietor, Vivekananda Marg, Balasore.  

                    2. Shorn of unnecessary details briefly stated the case of the Complainant is that the Complainant had purchased one mobile set of “Micromax” Unite 2 make, model No.A106 from O.P No.1 on 14.06.2014 on payment of Rs.6,900/- (Rupees Six Thousand Nine hundred) only and obtained a valid receipt, with warranty of one year from the date of purchase. But, after some days of purchase, the said mobile did not function properly such as power off-on key was not working properly along with manufacturing defect. The father of the Complainant as per advice of O.P No.1 handed over the said mobile set to O.P No.4 (Authorised Service Centre) on 05.08.2014 and obtained a receipt. But, on several request made by the Complainant to O.P No.4 for rectification of defects of said mobile set, the O.P No.4 did not pay any heed to it. As per advice of O.P No.4, the father of the Complainant lodged complaint before one Mr. Bitun roy, Bhubaneswar of self same company through mail vide complaint No.MMX0909145435, but was not fruitful. In the mean while, the father of the Complainant received one mail from the Micromax Care on 09.09.2014, but no action had been taken by the O.Ps for the said defective mobile set, which amounts to deficiency-in-service and also unfair trade practice by the O.Ps. The Complainant has prayed for replacement of defective mobile set by a new one along with compensation for mental agony and litigation cost. 

                     3. Written version filed by O.P No.1 though his Advocate, where he has denied on the point of maintainability as well as its cause of action. The O.P No.1 has further submitted that the Complainant had purchased the said mobile set from O.P No.1 for Rs.6,900/- (Rupees Six Thousand Nine hundred) only vide Retail invoice No.4977, dt.14.06.2014 with a warranty of one year from the date of purchase. The said mobile set gave manifold problems and as per approach made by the Complainant, the O.P No.1 on due examination came to know that the said mobile set suffers from manufacturing defects and accordingly, the O.P No.1 sent the Complainant to O.P No.4 (Authorised Service Centre) for due verification of defective mobile set and to the knowledge of O.P No.1, the said mobile set is with the O.P No.4 since 05.08.2014. The O.P No.1 is not the competent authority to rectify the defects of said mobile set, but the O.Ps No.2 to 4 are liable for the same since the mobile set is within the warranty period. 

                     4. Though sufficient opportunities were given to the O.Ps No.2 and 3, but they neither appeared nor filed their written version in this case. So, they are set ex-parte.

                     5. Though the O.Ps No.4 appeared in the case through his Advocate, but did not file his written version. So, the O.Ps No.4 is set ex-parte.

                    6. In view of the above averments of both the Parties, the points for determinations of this case are as follows:-

(i) Whether this Consumer case is maintainable as per Law ?

(ii) Whether there is any cause of action to file this case ?

(iii) To what relief the Complainant is entitled for ?   

                    7. In view of the above averments of the Complainant in order to substantiate her claim, she has filed certain documents as per list. O.Ps have not filed any documents in their support. Perused the same. It has been argued on behalf of the Complainant that after purchase of the alleged mobile set and after use, when it was found defective after some days, she approached O.P No.1, who found some manufacturing defect and as per his advice, the Complainant approached O.P No.4 (Authorised Service Centre), but no fruitful purpose came out in spite of several requests to O.P No.2 to 4, though the mobile set is within the warranty period. So, the Complainant has filed this case in this Forum praying for replacement of the defective mobile set by a new one along with compensation and litigation cost. The O.Ps No.2 to 4 were set ex-parte and the O.P No.1 is the vendor. It has been argued on behalf of the O.P No.1 that he is no where responsible for the deficiency of service by the O.Ps in this case. He has also laid down the Authority reported in 2011 (3) CPR-262 in the case of Tushar Baran Saha (Vrs.) Soma Bose, Customer Care-East, Technical Service Department, Soni India & Ors., where in it has been held by the Hon’ble West Bengal State C.D.R Commission, Kolkata that Company is liable to refund amount and pay compensation for defective articles sold by it. In this case, we did not find anything wrong with the vendor-O.P No.1.   

                    8. So, now on careful consideration of the entire materials available in the case record and on the basis of principle laid down by the above Authority as discussed earlier, now this Forum come to the conclusion that it clearly shows that the O.Ps No.2 to 4 are jointly or severally liable in this case for deficiency of service and O.P No.1 has no fault. So, the O.Ps No.2 to 4 are jointly or severally liable to replace the said defective mobile set by a new defect-free mobile set of same model within a period of 60 days of receipt of this order and in case of failure to do it, the O.Ps No.2 to 4 shall refund the price of the mobile set amounting to Rs.6,900/- (Rupees Six Thousand Nine hundred) only along with compensation of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand) only and litigation cost of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred) only to the Complainant within the above said period and failure to comply the same will carry interest @ 10% per annum from the date of order till realization, which will meet the ends of Justice in this case. Hence, Ordered:-

                                                     O R D E R

                         The Consumer case is dismissed on contest against O.P No.1 and allowed on ex-parte against O.Ps No.2, 3 and 4 with cost. The O.Ps No.2, 3 and 4 are jointly or severally liable to replace the defective mobile set by a new defect-free mobile set of same model within a period of 60 days of receipt of this order and in case of failure to do it, the O.Ps No.2, 3 and 4 shall refund the price of the mobile set amounting to Rs.6,900/- (Rupees Six Thousand Nine hundred) only along with compensation of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand) only and litigation cost of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred) only to the Complainant within the above said period and failure to comply the same will carry interest @ 10% per annum from the date of order till realization. The Complainant is also at liberty to realize the same from the O.Ps as per Law, in case of failure by the O.Ps to comply the Order.

                         Pronounced in the open Forum on this day i.e. the 26th day of September, 2017 given under my Signature & Seal of the Forum.