Order dictated by:

Sh.Anoop Sharma, Presiding Member

1.       Manav complainant has brought the instant complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that complainant has purchased mobile phone LE MAX 2 from opposite party No.2 on 21.8.2016  which was sold by opposite party No.2 for Rs. 22,999/-.  Opposite party No.1 is leading online merchant for all types of goods and opposite party No.2 is an authorized selling agent of certain products of opposite party No.2, opposite party No.3 is company, who manufactured the said mobile and opposite party No.4 is the authorized service centre for LEECO mobiles .After one week of receiving of parcel from opposite party No.1, the said mobile started creating problem i.e. finger print sensor on the back side of mobile stopped working and camera problem. The abovesaid mobile was having manufacturing defect from the date of its purchase. Thereafter  on 2.9.2016 complainant brought his mobile phone to opposite party No.4 for its repair and officials of opposite party No.4 exchanged the same with new mobile phone having same model and colour on  18.10.2016 with assurance that the said new mobile will not cause any problem. But the new mobile also started creating the same problem on the next day. Thereafter, on 19.10.2016 the complainant again approached the opposite party No.4 and handed over the mobile to them for its repair vide job sheet No. 201610280158. At that time the said mobile was in warranty period  and officials of opposite party No.4 assured the complainant that the said mobile will be repaired within a week. Thereafter the complainant approached many times  to opposite party No.4 for collection of his mobile phone , but opposite party No.4 lingered on matter on one pretext or the other . The said mobile phone is lying with opposite party No.4 from 19.10.2016 but till date the opposite parties have not repaired the mobile phone of the complainant. Vide instant complaint, complainant has sought for the following reliefs:-

(a)     Opposite parties  No.1 to 3 be directed to return the abovesaid mobile  or in the alternative to pay the cost of mobile worth Rs. 22,999/- ;

(b)     Compensation to the tune of Rs. 50000/- be also awarded to the complainant ;

(c )     Opposite parties be also directed to pay litigation expenses to the tune of Rs. 11000/-.

Hence, this complaint.

2.       Upon notice, opposite parties despite due service, did not opt to appear and contest the complaint, as such opposite parties were ordered to be proceeded against ex-parte.

3.       In his bid to prove the case complainant tendered into ex-parte evidence his duly sworn affidavit Ex.C-1,copy of invoice dated 22.8.2016 Ex.C-2,  copy of service job sheet Ex.C-3 and closed  his evidence.

4.       We have heard the complainant in person and have carefully gone through the record on the file.

5.       There is no dispute that the complainant purchased mobile hand set in dispute on 21.8.2016 from opposite party No.2 through opposite party No.1 which is leading online merchant for all types of goods against order No. 4071937398792 and invoice No. KA-BLR-2016082100000116 for Rs. 22,999/- copy whereof is Ex.C-2 on record. It is the case of the complainant that after one week of receipt of mobile from opposite party No.1, it started creating problem i.e. finger print sensor on the backside of mobile stopped working and camera problem.  On 2.9.2016 complainant brought his mobile phone to opposite party No.4 for its repair  and the officials of opposite party No.4 exchanged the same with new mobile phone on 18.10.2016. But , however the said new mobile also started creating same problem on the next day . Complainant again on 19.10.2016 approached opposite party No.4 and handed over the said mobile to them for its repair vide job sheet No. 201610280158, copy of job sheet accounts for Ex.C-3 on record. The mobile hand set was within its warranty period at that time and the opposite party No.4 assured that the mobile will be repaired within a week. Thereafter complainant approached the opposite party No.4 so many times and opposite party No.4 lingered on the matter on one pretext or the other and did not repair the mobile set of the complainant and till date the opposite parties have not repaired the mobile phone of the complainant. The complainant paid several visits to opposite party No.4 to enquire about the latest status of the mobile hand set in dispute. But , however, the opposite party No. 4 has failed to handover the mobile hand set in dispute  to the complainant, after repairs so far . It is the case   of the complainant  that mobile handset belonging to the complainant was beyond the scope of repairs as the same was in the custody of the opposite party No.4 since 19.10.2016, who failed to repair the mobile phone , hence it was suffering from manufacturing defects. Thus the case of the complainant for refund of the price of the mobile handset in dispute has been made out. The evidence adduced by the complainant has gone unrebutted on record as none appeared on behalf of the opposite parties to controvert the allegations made by the complainant in his complaint. As such the averments  made in the complaint as well as documentary evidence adduced with the complaint, have been accepted  to be correct by the opposite party impliedly.

6.       Consequently, the opposite parties are directed to refund the price of the mobile handset in dispute to the tune of Rs. 22,999/- . As the complainant has been harassed by the opposite parties as the mobile phone which is dire need of an individual in these days has been remained in the custody of the opposite party No.4 without any repair, as such complainant is entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs. 3000/-. Litigation expenses are assessed at Rs. 2000/-. Compliance of this order be made within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order; failing which complainant shall be entitled to get the order enforced through the indulgence of this Forum. Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated : 17.3.2017

/R/