The case according to the complainant, in brief, is that the complainant purchased a Gionee F-103 Smart Phone with accessories on 28.04.2016 at a price of Rs.9,600/- in cash with warranty of one year. Complainant averred that he had faced problem with the mobile phone from the 1^st day of its use and met the dealer time and again regarding the problem such as the set got heated, hanged and disconnected. On 24.05.2016 o.p.1 advised the complainant to knock the authorized service centre of the company (o.p.2) for repair. O.p-1 is dealer, o.p.3 is the manufacturer and o.p.2 is the service provider on behalf of o.p.3.  O.p.2 undertook the Gionee set firstly on 24.05.2016, secondly on 17.06.2016 and lastly on 18.07.2016. But the o.p.2 failed to annihilate the defect in the Gionee Set. Being frustrated with the non-functioning of the defective set complainant once again apprised his grievance to the dealer with retrospection of the sealing irregularity of the delivered package of the Gionee Mobile Set. Complainant tried to knock o.p.1 and o.p.4 on 28.07.2016 asking replacement of the mobile set or refund of the price of the set. But no tangible development could be achieved by the complainant to get rid of the trouble out of the mobile set. Complainant sought the help of the mediation sell of consumer affair and Fair Business practices, Government of West Bengal. But such attempt had also been frustrated on the non-cooperating attitude of the o.ps. Finding no other alternative complainant lodged this complainant praying direction upon the o.p. seeking replacement of the set or refund of Rs.9,600/- along with compensation of Rs.30,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-.

            PR & TR shows notice served to o.p.1, o.p.3 and o,.p.4 and subsequently to o.p.2. In spite of receiving notices by the respective o.ps they had not participated in the proceeding. o.ps did not contest this case by filing w/v and as such, the case has been proceeded ex-parte against the o.ps.

Considering the pleading of the complainant the following points are to be decided:-

1. Whether there is any defect in the goods in question?
2. Whether the complainant will be entitled to get any relief as prayed for?

Decision with reasons

                All the points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of facts.

            We have gone through the pleadings of the party and materials on record and evidence in particular. It is admitted fact that complainant purchased a Gionee F-103 Smart Phone with accessories on 28.04.2016 at a price of Rs.9,600/- in cash with warranty of one year.  But the complainant had faced problem with the mobile phone from the 1^st day of its use and met the dealer time and again. The set had the problem of getting heated, hanged and disconnected. On 24.05.2016 o.p.1 advised the complainant to knock the authorized service centre of the company (o.p.2) for repair. O.p-1 is dealer, o.p.3 is the manufacturer and o.p.2 is the service provider on behalf of o.p.3.  O.p.2 undertook the Gionee set firstly on 24.05.2016, secondly on 17.06.2016 and lastly on 18.07.2016. But the o.p.2 failed to repair the defect in the Gionee Set. Being frustrated with the non-functioning of the defective set complainant once again apprised his grievance to the dealer with retrospection of the sealing irregularity of the delivered package of the Gionee Mobile Set. Immediately after purchase of the set complainant faced many problems out of it and he was unable to use it which had been promptly reported to the op-1.  In order to prove the case the complainant sworn an affidavit of evidence in support of the contention of the complaint and filed the documents in support of his claim . Due to unchallenged testimony of the complainant there is no scope to disbelieve the submission of the complainant and therefore it should be accepted and necessary order is to be passed accordingly. The complainant purchased the mobile and he had no scope to use it at all. Therefore, from the facts and circumstances of the case we are in the view that there is inherent defects in the mobile set . Therefore, complainant is entitled to get relief. Thus all the points are disposed of accordingly.

            Hence, ordered.

            that the case no. 153/17 is allowed ex-parte on cost against the o.ps. The o.ps are, jointly and/or severally, directed to  pay  Rs.9,600/-( Rupees nine thousand six hundred) only to the complainant along with compensation of Rs.3,000/-( Rupees three thousand) only and litigation cost of Rs.3,000/-( Rupees three thousand) only within 30 days from the date of communication of this order i.d an interest @ 10% p.a shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization.

               On the date of receipt of aforesaid amount complainant is directed to return the old mobile set in question to o.p-1.