Amardeep Singh complainant has filed this complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 against the opposite parties praying that direction may be issued to the opposite party to replace defective phone with new one and refund the amount of Rs.8400/- along with damages of Rs.15,000/- towards harassment, mentally and physically and loss of business including Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses.  

2.       The case of the complainant in brief is that he purchased a brand new mobile handset micromax having model No.Q463 from the opposite party No.2 for a sum of Rs.8400/- on 12.10.2016 and as such he is the consumer of the opposite parties. It was pleaded that after the purchase of one month, the phone was not working properly and he filed a complaint before this Forum which was withdrawn by him on the assurance of opposite party No.3 and approached the service centre of opposite party No.3 and handed over his mobile on 24.03.2017 but after minor repair service centre handed over the phone set to the complainant which was not working properly after it as the battery of the same was not charged properly and after small use the same was highly heated. It was further pleaded that complainant told the service centre many times regarding the said problem but it was not succeeded in solving the same and ultimately complainant again handed over the phone set on 24.07.2017 to the opposite party No.3 who issued a job sheet on the same day and on the next day employee of opposite party No.3 told the complainant that there is a manufacturing defect in the mobile set which cannot be repaired. It was also pleaded that due to this act of the opposite parties complainant suffered mentally as well as physically and due to none functioning of phone he had suffered a loss of money as he is a shop keeper and many orders are booked on phone. It was next pleaded that complainant approached the opposite parties no.2 and 3 many times and requested them to replace his mobile with new one or return the amount of Rs.8400/- as phone is in warranty period but they refused and suggest the complainant to file complaint before this Forum. It was pleaded that the cause of action has arisen on 24.12.2017 when first time problem occurred in the phone and till today phone is not properly charged and working due to overheating, hence this complaint.

3.       Notice of the complaint was issued to opposite parties. Opposite party no.1 appeared through their counsel but it failed to file its written reply and was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 8.1.2018. Opposite parties no.2 and 3 did not appear despite service and was also proceeded against exparte vide order dated 22.9.2017.     

4.      Counsel for the complainant had tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C1 along with documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C4 and closed the exparte evidence on behalf of complainant.

5.       We have carefully examined all the documents/evidence as available on the complaint records (as duly put forth by the complainant) and arguments as put forth by the learned counsel for the complainant.

6.       We find that the complainant had purchased a brand new mobile handset micromax having model No.Q463 from the opposite party No.2 for a sum of Rs.8400/- on 12.10.2016 but was not working properly and giving many problems while using. Complainant approached the service centre of opposite party No.3 many times for its repair but it failed to repair the same. Complainant again approached the opposite party No.3 who told him that there is a manufacturing defect in the mobile which could not be repaired. To prove his version complaint has placed on file his affidavit Ex.C1, copy of retail invoice Ex.C2 and other documents Ex.C3 and Ex.C4. On the other hand opposite parties did not appear to contest the case of the complainant and were proceeded against exparte and it seems that opposite parties have admitted the claim of the complainant and rather preferred to remain exparte.           

7.       In the light of the all above, we partly allow the present complaint and thus ORDER the titled opposite parties to replace the defective mobile in question of the complainant with a new one of the same make and made besides to pay Rs.3000/- as cost and compensation to the complainant within 30 days from the receipt of copy of order. If opposite parties cannot replace the defective mobile then they shall be jointly and severally liable to refund the full sale price of the mobile set with interest @ 9% PA from the date of purchase till actual payment plus Rs.3000/- as cost and compensation.   

8.       Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges.After compliance, file be consigned to records.

                             (Naveen Puri)

                                                                                                President.

ANNOUNCED:                                                            (Jagdeep Kaur)

FEB. 12, 2018.                                                                           Member

YP.