The Complainant has filed this case alleging deficiency-in-service by the O.Ps, where O.P No.1 is MAYUR ELECTRONICS, Cinema Bazar, Balasore, O.P No.2 is SREE LAXMI SERVICES, Padhuanpada, Bidyut Marg, Balasore and O.P No.3 is Sony India Private Limited, Mathura Road, New Delhi.

                    2. Factual matrix of the dispute is that the Complainant purchased one Sony Xperia-E3 mobile bearing Model No.D2212 from O.P No.1 vide invoice No.26967, dt.25.12.2014 on payment of Rs.12,500/- (Rupees Twelve Thousand five hundred) only to the O.P No.1 and received warranty card expiring on 25.12.2015. The said mobile started problem about after 2 months of use by the Complainant such as hanging 3 to 5 times regularly, call buttom not worked properly, phone showing switched off status to the incoming callers even the mobile is on and in full network coverage and the said mobile gets heated after a few minutes of talk and the heat continues for about 15 minutes even after switching it off. Thus, the Complainant lodged the complain before O.P No.1 and as per advice of O.P No.1, the Complainant had been to O.P No.2, where O.P No.2 repaired the same, but yields no result. Thereafter, the Complainant sent e-mail on 26.10.2015 to O.P No.2 about difficulties of his mobile and the O.P No.2 replied on 28.10.2015 suggesting to contact Service Centre along with all papers and the mobile set. Accordingly, the Complainant had been to O.P No.2 for repair of the said mobile on 31.10.2015, but no result and lastly had been to O.P No.1 and 2 and requested for repair/ replacement of said mobile as per warranty condition, but the O.P No.1 and 2 strongly refused to repair/ replace the same, for which finding no other way, the Complainant filed this case for necessary relief. The Complainant has prayed for repair/ replacement of the defective Sony mobile along with compensation for mental agony and litigation cost.    

                    3. Written version filled by O.P No.1 through 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 above said mobile covers for warranty of 12 months from the date of purchase i.e. up to 25.12.2015 are not disputed by O.P No.1. The O.P No.1 has strongly refused to the averments mentioned in para-4 to 6 are false, fabricated and concocted story in order to initiate this case against this O.P. The Company has given warranty for 1 year on the said mobile and 6 months warranty on the battery and charger from its purchase date, but not by the O.P No.1. If any defect is noticed in the mobile, then the Complainant has to produce the same to the O.P No.2 i.e. Authorized Service Centre of the Company. The O.P No.1 is not liable for missing or delay in serving the mobile from the Service Centre and the Complainant after knowing the aforesaid condition purchased the said mobile. Moreover, the O.P No.1 has not committed any deficiency to provide service to the Complainant and also not liable to pay any compensation as claimed for. Though O.P No.1 appeared in this case and filed written version, he did not take part in hearing of this case.

                    4. Though the O.P No.2 appeared in this case, but not filed their written version and the O.P No.3 has not appeared in the case, so both the O.Ps No.2 and 3 are set ex-parte.

                    5. 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 ? 

                    6. In order to substantiate their pleas, the Complainant has filed certain documents as per list, whereas the O.P No.1 though filed written version has not filed any document in his support and also did not participate in hearing. Perused the documents filed by the Complainant. It has been argued on behalf of the Complainant that while the mobile was not properly functioning and after repair, he approached O.P No.1 & 2 who refused to repair/ replace the same though it was within warranty period. So, from the material available in the case record, it clearly shows that the mobile set is a defective one, for which it require proper repair/ replacement and O.P No.2 and 3 are the Competent Authority to comply the same. According to C.P Act, 1986, when there is defect in goods, it should be repaired or replaced or the price should be refunded.    

                    7. So, now on careful consideration of all the materials available in the case record, this Forum come to the conclusion that it is a fit case to direct the O.Ps to replace the defective mobile with a new mobile set of similar description which shall be free from any defect within the said price rate of Rs.12,500/- (Rupees Twelve Thousand five hundred) only with extended warranty or in the alternative, to refund the price of the mobile i.e. Rs.12,500/- (Rupees Twelve Thousand five hundred) only along with compensation of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand) only and litigation cost of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred) only for deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps to the Complainant within 60 days of receipt of this order and the O.Ps are jointly or severally liable for the same and failure to comply the same will carry interest @ 9% per annum, which will meet the ends of justice in this case. Hence, Ordered:-

                                                     O R D E R

                         The Consumer case is allowed on contest against O.P No.1 and on ex-parte against O.P No.2 and 3 with cost. The O.Ps are jointly or severally directed to replace the same mobile with a new mobile set of similar description which shall be free from any defect within the said price rate of Rs.12,500/- (Rupees Twelve Thousand five hundred) only with extended warranty or in the alternative, to refund the price of the mobile i.e. Rs.12,500/- (Rupees Twelve Thousand five 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 60 days of receipt of this order, failing which it will carry interest @ 9% 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 22nd day of August, 2017 given under my Signature & Seal of the Forum.