1.                     The brief history of the case of the complainant is that he purchased a Yuphoria mobile handset bearing IMEI No.911476057106544 & No.911476058106543 from OP No.1 for Rs.7700/- vide Invoice No.11130 dt.08.2.2016 but after few months of its use the handset did not work properly for which he approached OP.2 (ASC) for its repair.  It is submitted that the OP.2 on inspection stated that the IMEI number of the set is wrong and hence it cannot be repaired by OP.2 and the set is to be sent to other Care Centre.  The OP.2 received the handset on 06.10.2016 but when the OP.2 returned the set on 22.10.2016, the complainant found that the handset is not repaired.  It was noticed that the screen of the set became white along with hang problem.  The complainant submitted that the handset is with the OP.2 and he is 0nly assuring to repair the handset.  Thus alleging defects in goods and deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, he has filed this case praying the Forum to direct the Ops to refund Rs.7700/- towards the cost of the handset and to pay Rs.7000/- towards compensation and costs to the complainant.

2.                     The Ops 1 & 2 in spite of valid notice neither filed counter nor participated in the proceeding in any manner.  The OP.3 filed counter denying the allegations of the complainant and contended that as per complaint, the complainant has produced the handset before OP.2 for repair and the OP.2 has delivered the handset to the complainant and hence no case has been made out against OP.3.  The OP contended that there is no dispute regarding manufacturing defect in the handset and unless the alleged handset is produced by the complainant as well as OP.2 before the Forum, the dispute cannot be adjudicated.  The OP submitted that there is no cause of action to sue the OP.3 and the complainant has not produced any expert opinion to prove that the handset is defective.  With these and other contentions, denying any fault on its part, the OP.3 prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.

3.                     The complainant has filed certain documents in support of his case.  Heard from the complainant and A/R for the OP.3 and perused the materials available on record.

4.                     In this case purchase of Yuphoria handset by the complainant from OP.1 for Rs.7700/- is supported by copy of Retain Invoice No.11130 dt.08.02.2016 issued by OP.1.  The complainant stated that he handed over the set to OP.2 on 14.8.2016 for repair but OP.2 did not repair the set with different pleas even if the handset was under warranty.  Finally on 06.10.2016 the OP.2 has received the set and stated that as the IMEI number of the handset is wrong, the set cannot be repaired by him but it is to be sent to other care centre.  It is the case of the complainant that on 22.10.2016 the OP.2 took back the job sheet and returned the handset but the complainant found that the set is not repaired.  Further problem like screen white and hang problem were noticed in the handset.  Hence the complainant left his handset with OP.2 for repair again.  According to the complainant, the handset is still with OP.2 and he is suffering without handset.

5.                     The A/R for OP.3 vehemently submitted before the Forum that the complainant is to be directed to produce the defective handset with accessories for verification.  It is not know as to who will verify the handset.  It is a fact that the handset is with the ASC of the Company and the ASC in spite of approach did not return the handset to the complainant.  The OP.2 also did not prefer to file counter in this case though entered appearance through his advocate.  It is pertinent to say that the OP.3 Company has engaged OP.2 as ASC and has total control over the ASC.  In the above premises, we do not feel it proper to direct the OP.2 to produce the handset in question in order to know the fact of dispute.  Moreover, the fact is very clear in this case and the set is with OP.2 that means with the Company’s ASC.

6.                     Further the A/R for OP.3 is grumbling about expert opinion.  In this context, it can be said that the ASC duly appointed by OP.3 Company is an expert centre in the field of mobile repairing and the said ASC has issued documents as narrated supra from which it was clearly ascertained that the handset of the complainant is suffering defects for which it could not be repaired for use.  Lastly the ASC could not repair the set and kept with him till date.  In the above circumstances, it can be safely hold that the handset sold to the complainant is a defective one and the OP.3 being the manufacturing company is to refund Rs.7700/- to the complainant towards cost of the handset with due interest.  As the ASC (OP.2) has not done its duty prudently and kept the handset without taking necessary action in time, it has committed deficiency in service.  For such unfair and inaction of the OP.2, the complainant must have suffered serious mental agony and also has come up with this case incurring some expenditure and as such the complainant is entitled for compensation and costs.  Considering the sufferings of the complainant, we feel a sum of Rs.2, 000/- towards compensation and costs in favour of the complainant will meet the ends of justice.

7.                     Hence ordered that the complaint petition is allowed and the OP No.2 is directed to pay Rs.2, 000/- towards compensation and costs to the complainant.  The OP.3 is directed to pay Rs.7700/- towards cost of the handset with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing of this case i.e. 31.10.2016 to the complainant and to collect the defective handset from the ASC (OP No.2) at its own convenient.  The above directions are to be complied by the Ops within 30 days from the date of communication of this order.  If the OP.2 does not comply with the order, the awarded amount of Rs.2, 000/- against him shall carry interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of this order till payment.

(to dict.)