1.                     The brief facts of the case of the complainant are that she purchased a GIONEE F103 Model (Pro-Grey) handset from OP.1 vide Invoice No.666 dt.22.9.2016 for Rs.12, 000/- having IMEI No.86151597039165983 & No.861597039915981 and after 2 months of its use, the set became hang, repeated auto off and net facility did not work at all.  On approach, the OP.1 brought the set into order on 3 occasions as same problem returned again and again.  It is submitted that during the month of February, 2017 the same problem returned and the set heat problem became so acute that it was difficult to hold on.  On approach, the OP.1 received the set to send the same to higher Centre for repair.  A registration number came to the cell number of the complainant.  After that OK message and ready for handing over message also came.  The complainant received back the set after 2 months but found existence of same problems.  On approach, the OP.1 advised to contact OP.2-manufacturer for necessary redressal of the grievance.  The complainant submitted that she does not know to OP.2 as she purchased the handset from OP.1 who also took charge of repairs but the OP.1 did not help her in this matter.  Thus alleging defect in goods and deficiency in service on the part of the Ops she has filed this case praying the Forum to direct the Ops to refund Rs.12, 000/- towards cost of the handset with interest @ 12% p.a. from 22.9.2016 and to pay Rs.30, 000/- towards compensation and costs to the complainant.

2.                     In spite of valid notice, the Ops neither filed counter nor participated in the proceeding in any manner.  Hence the Ops were remained set exparte in this proceeding.

3.                     The complainant has filed original invoice issued by OP.1 and also affidavit in support of her case.  Heard from the complainant through her A/R and perused the materials available on record.

4.                     In this case, purchase of handset from OP.1 is supported by retail invoice vide No.666 dt.22.9.2016 for Rs.12, 000/-.  Hence the purchase of handset is proved.  It is the case of the complainant that after 2 months of its use the defects like set hang, switch off and heat problems found in the set.  She has approached 3 times for the same problem and on all occasion, the OP.1 has repaired the set but the problems remained unsolved.  Finally she handed over the set to OP.1 during February, 2017 as the set heat problem became acute and it was very difficult to hold on the set besides other problems.  According to the complainant, the OP.1 received the set to send the same to higher Centre for repair.  The complainant also received message from repairing centre and after 2 months she received back the set but found existence of said problems for which the handset was sent for repair.  On approach, the OP.1 advised the complainant to approach OP.2 for redressal of her grievance.  Now the handset is lying dead with the complainant.

5.                     In absence of counter and participation of both the Ops in this case, we lost opportunity to know anything from the Ops and hence the allegations of the complainant remained unchallenged.  In this case, the OP.1 is the seller and also acts as ASC of the Company.  The OP.1 knows the condition of the handset and hence OP.1 should intimate to OP.2 regarding the sufferings of the complainant with the handset during warranty period.  Further in spite of repeated repairs the handset could not be brought into order which clearly proves that the handset suffers from inherent manufacturing defect.  Hence the OP.2 being the manufacturer is also squarely liable for the defects in the handset and both the Ops are to be directed to refund the cost of the handset besides compensation and costs.  For nonfunctioning of the set and excess heat, the same could not be used and required repeated repairs and for the said reasons the complainant must have suffered some mental agony and thus certainly entitled for compensation and cost of this litigation.   Considering the sufferings, we feel a sum of Rs.4000/- towards compensation and cost in favour of the complainant will meet the ends of justice.

6.                     Hence ordered that the complaint petition is allowed in part and the Ops 1 & 2 being jointly and severally liable are directed to refund Rs.12, 000/- towards cost of the handset with interest @ 12% p.a. from 22.9.2016 in lieu of defective handset and to pay Rs.4000/- towards compensation and costs to the complainant within 30 days from the date of communication of this order.

(to dict.)